The New Constitution

As a result of a democratic decision – albeit with a very narrow margin of five votes – by the membership at the recent special general meeting, the Otago Natural History Trust has a new constitution that differs significantly from the one it replaces. 

The most important change is that the board can now appoint three full trustees without reference to the membership. This means that the trust is no longer a fully democratic organisation, and has thus lost the main characteristic that distinguished it from the governing bodies of other fenced wildlife sanctuaries in New Zealand.

The changes were brought about to enable the board to appoint a trustee from Kati Huirapa Runaka ki  Puketeraki, the local iwi, so that the runaka would be represented regardless of who occupied  the six trustee positions elected by the membership at an AGM. The board argued that the changes would also enable the appointment of representatives of other organisations that might be important to the governance of Orokonui Ecosanctuary in the future. Time will tell.

Appointments to the board must be accompanied by a Memorandum of Understanding that sets out the rights and responsibilities of the two parties but, again, the membership has no oversight of the content of the MoU. The board claims that another new rule will ensure that elected trustees will always be in the majority at board meetings, thus protecting the board from undue pressure from appointed trustees. Once more, time will tell.

The board may also appoint advisors, who will not have voting rights. This formalises the existing arrangement whereby outside expertise has been called on to assist the board at its meetings.

Given that nearly half the membership as represented at the special general meeting were opposed to the change, it’s reasonable to suggest that a substantial number of Orokonui supporters will be worried about the outcome.  This blog will be maintained to provide a critical appraisal of the activities of the new board, both to give the board the opportunity to show that its objectives were genuinely to improve the governance of Orokonui, and to make public any indications that they were not. 

Otago Daily Times writer criticises ONHT board and runaka

Passing Notes by Civis

Otago Daily Times 30 July 2011, page 35

I’m not so convinced the apparent fractious nature of governance at the Orokonui Ecosanctuary is a blessing, and I fervently hope the issues can be settled without damaging this wonderful asset. After reading Ralph Allen’s piece in this newspaper on Monday, I remain convinced that those who have been fomenting the constitutional change have lost sight of the first purpose of the sanctuary, at least as it was understood by those of us who supported its beginnings. I, for one, have no wish to see it become a political plaything, or to be an asset – cultural or otherwise – to be fought over by those who measure their success by the power they like to claim over others. The broader national question of “ownership”, which will continue to cause trouble for years to come, is perfectly symbolised by this local scrap. And when I read about the ritual galliard that must be performed before the sanctuary can acquire new feathered residents, I begin to wonder whether we have not lost the plot entirely in this country.

The demand for special and exclusive guaranteed Maori representation on supposedly democratic entities is one that has been growing louder with each concession. We have seen it in local government, where – disgracefully – at least one Act of Parliament was passed to provide it, we have seen it in creation of Greater Auckland governance arrangements, and now we are seeing it at Orokonui. I cannot imagine next year’s debate about a national constitution will make progress while one sector continues to demand privilege.

Members' comments on proposed change

Otago Natural History Trust members Paul Earl and Janet Goddard have this to say about the proposed constitutional change:

Re Orokonui. The article on the proposed changes to the Trust deed merely confirms the board's agenda to us.

As we read it, the proposal is this:

The board may invite three appointees. What is to stop them all being representatives of a single pressure group such as the runaka? The rules set no limit. Only a quorum of three elected board members will be needed for endorsement of the appointee/s, so they could all be supporters of the ambitions of the runaka or any other pressure group. There is no control other than by the Memorandum of Understanding, which could easily be designed by, and to benefit, the pressure group (perhaps under threat of withdrawal of their support – the precedent has been set) and be accepted by a quorum of three pressure group sympathisers. There is no process by which the membership can have any input to the MoU.

So, in effect, three elected board members and three unelected appointees, who together can outvote the other board members, could run the ecosanctuary. The three year tenures could simply be rolled over indefinitely, resulting in permanent control of the ecosanctuary by, and for the benefit of, a pressure group. And all this without reference to the membership.

Legal mind finds fishhooks in proposed constitution change

Lawyer Hilary Calvert, whose family has been a significant benefactor of Orokonui Ecosanctuary, has this to say about the proposed change to the constitution.

Dear Board,

On a cursory look at the proposed constitution of the ONHT Board, the plan is to have a MOU with any organisations who are given a power to appoint to the Board.

This MOU is described as setting out rights and responsibilities with respect to governance of the OHNT and an understanding of the respective roles in the operation of the Trust.

There are issues with this approach.

1. No thought seems to have been given as to whether the Board, with or without the appointed members, must approve the MOU. Signed, for example, by whom?

2. The MOU clearly contemplates binding the Board in its governance role, something it should never do.

3. It also clearly contemplates that the rules could effectively prevent the Board working by majority, as it would be curtailed by the MOU.

Neville Peat's note to members describing the rule changes is therefore not completely accurate.

Far from having checks and balances to protect the elected members being in charge of the Board, it allows for an MOU by an outside organisation to overrule the decisions of the Board for the life of the MOU.

Appointed members would not be outnumbered: they would effectively have a right to arrange an understanding that allowed them to have say a veto or demand to carry out a particular course of action.

I would appreciate your sending this message out to members so that they are in a position to see this proposition from another side.

Hilary Calvert

Ralph Allen's optimism premature

        Well, Ralph, that was a bit premature. Today Otago Natural History Trust members received a second notice about the special and annual general meetings; this time with the full text of the proposed rule change (and too late for the 21 day minimum notice required for a special general meeting; but heck, what are rules for if not to be broken?). And yes, it does aim to enable the trust to appoint up to three unelected board members and give them full voting rights. This comes with a raft of checks and balances – you’d think the board didn’t trust itself to appoint the right people. These include  

         

•   An appointment under 4.1.5 of these rules shall be accompanied by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that sets out explicitly the aspirations, rights and responsibilities of the parties with respect to the governance of the ONHT Trust and an understanding of their respective roles in the operation of the Trust.  
•  An organization invited to nominate a representative shall advise or reconfirm in writing, the name of their representative to the Trust secretary not less than 10 days prior to the Annual General Meeting each year. At the Annual General Meeting, Trust members will be advised of the names of the nominees. The acceptance of the nominee’s appointment to the ONHT Board, will not be arbitrarily or unreasonably withheld

Unfortunately, checks and balances notwithstanding, there’s no guarantee that Kati Huirapa Runaka ki Puketeraki won’t use coercion again to ensure itself a place on the board (appointments will not be arbitrarily or unreasonably withheld – by whose standards?) or to otherwise further its own political interests. What use is a Memorandum of Understanding between the trust and an appointee if the trust board can’t or won’t enforce its provisions?  Or if the appointee won’t sign it, as the runaka haven’t with the one drafted for them in 2010?

ONHT members are still faced with an awful dilemma. If they vote against the rule change, will the runaka take utu by turning down species translocation proposals, thus controlling the ecological (and probably financial) viability of the ecosanctuary? Or, if members vote for the proposal, will the runaka control the future direction of the ecosanctuary anyway by continuing to use threats to get their own way at the board table?

Contentious rule change dropped

Members of the Otago Natural History Trust will by now have received notice of the special general meeting and annual general meeting on 28 July. Notable is that the rule change proposed now involves only one additional rule, 4.1.12, which reads (my emphases in red):

The Board may at its discretion invite an individual with particular expertise, interest or legislative role in the conservation of  New Zealand’s indigenous flora and fauna, or having a significant role with respect to the activities of the Trust, to attend ONHT Board meetings as an Advisor.

 Explanatory Note: The trustees wish to be able to appoint persons of relevant expertise to the trust board. At present the trust board is limited to six trustees whose annual election process will remain unchanged. The proposed change will give us a chance to appoint key stake-holders to provide valuable assistance to ensure the viable operation of the Ecosanctuary. Any stakeholder so appointed will be required to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with ONHT before appointment.

This change will formalise what has been the practice for the last ten years, when DoC has had an advisor attend trust board meetings.

Many thanks to those whose support has brought about the revision of the proposed rule change. Particular gratitude and respect are due to Upoko David Ellison and the  Kati Huirapa Kaumatua Council. They showed courage, dignity and great mana in standing up to the Runaka and appealing to the ONHT not to change the rules to accommodate a permanent seat on the board for a Runaka representative.

Tena rawa atu koe te rangatira e David

Ralph Allen

Wai 262 a bit of a non-event

The ODT seems to have given the Waitangi Tribunal’s report on Wai 262 (the ‘Flora and Fauna Claim’) as much attention as media commentators in general think it warrants – none. I guess time and culture have moved on since the claim was lodged 20 years ago. However, the claim has at its core some important principles, and it will be interesting to see how the government of the day deals with it after the election. In the meantime both Maori and Pakeha will have to continue to exercise patience before we all find out if the Tribunal’s report will have any influence on the politicians, let alone on how New Zealanders view the value and management of indigenous species in the future. 

Ralph Allen

Pakeha and Maori conservation ethics and their application at Orokonui

There are two separate legs to the problem of Kati Huirapa wanting an unelected seat on the ONHT Trust Board. One is the democratic leg which has been thoroughly discussed, but the second is the Maori view of conservation which I have commonly found to be different from the Pakeha view.  I am using Pakeha here in the way that Michael King uses it - the common culture of non-Maori New Zealanders,  which is something to acknowledge and celebrate.

The Trust was set up by Pakeha with Pakeha aims  described as preservation, protection, conservation and fostering of New Zealand flora and fauna,  with a strong educational focus as well.  When DoC gave over management of the area to the Trust, and when the University of Otago, the Otago Museum and NHNZ signed MOUs with the Trust this would have been their understanding of what they were agreeing to  - a Pakeha institution with Pakeha aims.

If we think as Pakeha about the place of people in the Ecosanctuary,  human beings clearly have a place inside the fence.    But their place has to do more with HOW the objective is achieved, not the objective itself.  By educating, you gain support for the objective and explain why an intact ecosystem is important.  And the only way that humans enter the system of physical energy exchange inside the fence is by input (adding plants, animals, expending energy on maintenance),  without taking out energy in the form of food or plant materials.   With this attitude, we can even contemplate the ambition of restoring Orokonui to an entire forested ecosystem in its pre-human state.

The Maori viewpoint at this simple practical level is different.

Maori conservation includes terms such as:
  1.  Taiapure  which are areas involving  management of fisheries and controlling the taking of fish by runaka,
  2.  Mataitai  which are areas  for  customary taking of shellfish and other marine foods.
  3.  Rahui  - can mean regulation by a chief to preserve an area so as to improve a resource such as pigeons.

Even though Maori don't think in such terms,  they see humans as part of the physical exchange of energy within the ecosystem, taking as well as giving, even though they add spiritual values into the mix.  Pakeha spiritual values about conservation are all about giving in the short term at least, with any long term gain a very long way off and about preservation of the planet as a whole.   I have never heard a Maori discussion about restoring a place to its pre-human state, and I doubt that it would appeal, at either a practical or spiritual level.

So I consider:-

  That Maori do have different conservation values from Pakeha and these need to be discussed.

  Maori and Pakeha both need to respect each other views.

  Orokonui was set up in pursuit of a specifically Pakeha conservation ethic.

If local iwi wish for any sort of formal partnership, they must openly accept that ethic for Orokonui, just as we have accepted the setting up of taiapure and maitaitai in coastal waters.  They must declare for "all give and no take"at Orokonui in the foreseeable future.

Jill Hamel

Have your say

If you want to have a say on this blog, submit your opinion piece to kakariki19@gmail.com. All contributions will be considered, but those that don't meet acceptable standards won't be published.

Why it should be all about the birds

Kakariki writes on this blog with what seems like a very good understanding of Maori protocol and modern day Maori hierarchy. I on the other hand and without any disrespect, am unashamedly uninterested in Maori protocol or culture.  I like to think that 150 years on New Zealand is developing a culture of its own and that culture is a combination of all the people who have lived here before us and are living here now! I acknowledge that Maori culture has a special place in the history of this country both past and present but not to the extent that it displaces anyone else or is so special that it deserves separate status in modern day New Zealand. I was pleasantly surprised to receive a call after my letter in the ODT from a local Maori who was very closely related to one of Dunedin’s prominent Maori families. This call was very supportive of my sentiments in that ODT letter and it was gratifying and humbling to hear this man revel his embarrassment for the way in which the Orokonui situation had developed. One point he made to me which really has no relevance to any cultural bickering was that we in New Zealand are so lucky to live here.  Four million people living in such a beautiful place, no time to fight amongst ourselves!  So true and anyone will acknowledge that all of our descendants Maori included have made mistakes in regard to the development of modern day New Zealand.  The reason Orokonui was conceived was not developed around any concern for human cultural preservation. The essence of Orokonui was always centred on flora and fauna. This concern for human cultural protocol is very much divisive and certainly is wasted energy when Orokonui Sanctuary itself is in a state of shaky existence. Funding and finance is a continual nightmare. Marvellous as it is, the new visitor centre is way over the top from what I envisaged and is a big animal in itself taking a lot of financial resources to operate leaving the practical flora and fauna requirements wanting! Arguing over human frailties is an embarrassment to all of us. You would think that given the knowledge of what we humans have done to New Zealand over the centuries it would be possible for all people to forget about any self motivated issues. In just a tiny wee patch of Otago surely it is possible to try and create a little bit of New Zealand the way it was!  

For me this photo says it all, this is a male kaka (Mr Roto) who I personally cared for nine years in captivity. He was originally from Lake Rotoiti, Nelson Lakes. His mother was killed by a stoat and he was removed from the nest and hand reared.  He is now free in Orokonui Sanctuary and has made his mark by contributing offspring while in captivity that now also fly free at Orokonui. He was never concerned with human cultural conservation; he just got on and did what he needed to do as this is the result.  He sometimes feels the need for personal contact with people but essentially the Orokonui Ecosanctuary is his world now. What a wonderful gift for all and certainly not worth losing because of the self interest of humans who stole his world before!

Tony Pullar     

   

Kati Huirapa manawhenua - what it means for the ecosanctuary

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 19^th 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.

Iwi want exclusive rights to native wildlife

Iwi already have a significant say in the management of native wildlife because DoC must consult them and seldom makes decisions against iwi wishes. But some iwi want more - exclusive and comprehensive rights to native flora and fauna. Six iwi - Ngati Koata (at present holding up tuatara translocations), Ngāti Kuri, Ngāti Wai, Te Rarawa, Ngāti Porou, and Ngāti Kahungunu - have a claim before the Waitangi Tribunal; Wai 262. If the Tribunal recommends its acceptance, the future of our wildlife looks dire indeed. Ministry of Economic Development website  http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/Page____1207.aspx has the details. No doubt Kati Huirapa will be watching developments with interest. Owning the wildlife would be an even greater boost to the iwi's mana than simply being able to control DoC's management of it and controlling the future of Orokonui Ecosanctuary. As the New Zealand Herald put it (13th June 2011):

An imminent Waitangi Tribunal finding could be the most explosive New Zealand has yet to deal with, making the foreshore and seabed pale in comparison. 

Iwi already have life membership

Kati Huirapa's website http://www.puketeraki.co.nz/, under Environmental Projects, says that "the Runaka was recently recognised by the Otago Natural History Trust as an Honorary Life Member". No other group - not Forest and Bird, not the Dunedin City Council, not Rotary - has that honour, despite all these and many others  giving much more in donations and labour than the Runaka. So why the Runaka? And why is this not enough "symbolic formal recognition in the long term", to use the words of Runaka chairman Matapura Ellison?

Staff support iwi ambitions

General Manager Chris Baillie has this to say about the purpose of Orokonui Ecosanctuary:

"I want to work for an organisation that contributes to the conservation of Maori culture in a similar way that we are protecting indigenous flora and fauna".

Maybe she's got the wrong employer then. The aims of the Otago Natural History Trust are quite clear, as expressed in the trust's constitution:

•  To promote the preservation, protection, conservation and fostering of flora and fauna found in New Zealand.       
• To provide facilities for the maintenance and care, and housing and display of flora and fauna found in New Zealand in an environment reflective of their natural habitat. 
• To educate, and to encourage the awareness of the public, in respect of the preservation, protection and conservation of flora and fauna found in New Zealand. 
• To do anything else within New Zealand that will advance any of these aims.

The aim of Orokonui Ecosanctuary is to create:

• A healthy self-sustaining ecosystem, free of all introduced mammals, and comprising indigenous species that are appropriate to the Orokonui site, where people can enjoy a peaceful encounter with nature, and from which they may take recreation, refreshment, new knowledge, new skills, and a new commitment to conservation.

Nothing in here that even remotely implies that conservation of Maori culture is an objective, and neither should it.

Exploitation of Maori culture to generate income might fall under the Trust's last aim, and maybe that's what's happening with all the Maori cultural activities that are occurring at Orokonui. But where's the nature conservation message in that? Why is the emphasis increasingly directed away from the protection of the wildlife that was here for aeons before any humans?

Threat confirmed

Well, it's official. In today's Otago Daily Times (7 June http://www.odt.co.nz/your-town/waitati/163677/dispute-over-orokonui-constitution) under the headline "Dispute over Orokonui constitution", Kati Huirapa Runaka ki Puketeraki's chairman Matapura Ellison confirmed that the runaka's support for Orokonui Ecosanctuary pivoted on some "symbolic formal recognition" in the long term. That's a repeat of the threat from the runaka that started this whole sorry saga - give us a permanent seat on the Otago Natural History Trust board or we'll withdraw support.

Other organisations, including the University of Otago, the Otago Museum and NHNZ, are content to have their relationship with Orokonui formalised in a Memorandum of Understanding. No demands for representation on the board, no standover tactics - just amicable discussion. What's so different about Kati Huirapa Runaka ki Puketeraki?

Orokonui has bent over backwards to accommodate Kati Huirapa over the last 10 years. The runaka has had an unelected member on the board all this time, in contravention of the constitution. Te Reo Maori is used throughout the visitor centre and sanctuary. Land was provided free of charge for the pa harakeke. Displays and events in the visitor centre and learning centre promote Maori culture. Kati Huirapa have been invited to officiate at numerous species translocations. The list goes on.

How much more will Kati Huirapa demand? At what cost to the ecosanctuary's true purpose - providing safe and secure habitat for our threatened native species? Is Orokonui destined to become a Maori theme park?

Why change the constitution?

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.