In 2004 the constitution of the Otago Natural History Trust was revised by the then appointed board, which included a representatve of local iwi Kati Huirapa Runaka ki Puketeraki. The change was intended to reflect the trust's new role as the developer of the sanctuary. Since then there have been six trustees, all elected by the membership at the AGM. The board was asked by the 2008 AGM to review the constitution, and reported back to the 2009 AGM that no changes were necessary; a decision unanimously endorsed by the membership.
At the 2010 AGM, two new trustees were elected but Kati Huirapa Runaka ki Puketeraki failed to nominate their candidate, Barbara Moerhuis, on time. Barbara’s response was to turn up at the next trust board meeting and, following a telephone call to Runaka manager Suzanne Ellison, demand a seat on the board as of right, threatening the withdrawal of iwi support for the sanctuary if denied that right. Panicked by the threat, which if carried out would result in the trust being prevented from introducing any new species to the sanctuary, an elected member of the board resigned to allow Barbara to be appointed to fill the vacancy. The board then started the process of revising the constitution to allow Kati Huirapa a seat as of right.
Although the change is being promoted by the board as, amongst other things, "future-proofing" and "clarifying the trustee rules around membership", it's abundantly clear that its sole true purpose is to allow Kati Huirapa to circumvent the democratic process to ensure they have a seat on the board.
How can Kati Huirapa claim to have earned this privilege? Simply because 150 years ago some of their ancestors exercised mana whenua (customary tribal authority) over the broad geographical area in which the Orokonui Ecosanctuary is located. This small group of people doesn't differ from the 2000 members of the Otago Natural History Trust in any other way. They certainly can't claim to have made a more significant contribution to the welfare of the native flora and fauna at Orokonui than anyone else has.
Kati Huirapa have not sought special status at Orokonui before, and neither has any other group, including people and organisations who have given hundreds of thousands of dollars and vast amounts of time and energy to the ecosanctuary project.
So what's changed? Simply that Orokonui Ecosanctuary is clearly now a success and, as has happened at Maungatautari Ecological Island (www.savemaungatautari.org.nz), iwi see the project as a vehicle for promotion of Maori culture and enhancement of their own mana.
Iwi already control the Department of Conservation's ability to carry out conservation efforts on threatened native bird and animal species. DoC hands are tied, irrespective of the ecological merits of a proposal, by being required to gain iwi approval. There are many examples of well-founded conservation proposals being stalled by iwi intransigence. The recent translocation of Haast tokoeka to Orokonui was completely controlled by iwi, and its success will be compromised by the iwi requirement to return all progeny from Orokonui to south Westland - the exact area where this species has dwindled close to extinction because of predation by introduced pests. Where's the net gain for conservation in that scenario? There isn't one - just a gain in mana for the two iwi involved, and a temporary drawcard for the ecosanctuary..
While the Otago Natural History Trust is still democratic, its members can vote for or against this iniqitous proposal at the AGM on 28 July. Members must decide whether or not the proposal would result in an improvement in the welfare of New Zealand's threatened native species or in the governance of the Otago Natural History Trust and Orokonui Ecosanctuary - the only two outcomes that matter. To accept the proposed change is to acknowlege that iwi should have control of the conservation of our threatened species, and that Kati Huirapa Runaka ki Puketeraki have an intrinsic right to permanent representation on the ONHT board of trustees.
