FISHING RIGHTS OF MAORIS

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 21991, 15 January 1937, Page 10

FISHING RIGHTS OF MAORIS

POSITION UNDER TREATY OF WAITANGI WHITEBAIT REGULATIONS MISUNDERSTOOD Misunderstanding of. the legal position created by the Fisheries Act and of rights conferred by the Treaty of Waitangi exists among Maoris in South Canterbury. Interviewed yesterday, the ranger to the South Canterbury Acclimatisation , Society, Mr F. W. Pellett, said he had found it necessary to place the matter officially before Mr N. Waaka, chairman of the Arowhenua Runanga, Temuka, because of a continuing confusion of opinion about regulations governing whitebait fishing. Many Maoris had not observed the close season for whitebait netting, alleging that these regulations were for Europeans and not Maoris, who were given special rights by the Treaty of Waitangi. The true legal position—under which Maoris and Europeans are affected alike —is to be explained to the Maoris at the meeting of the Arowhenua pa next month. Certain of the Maoris, Mr Pellett said, contended that the treaty entitled them to net indigenous fish, which included whitebait. The treaty, he said, did apply to indigenous fish, and whitebait were indigenous; but it did not apply to fish imported or acclimatised ; since the treaty was made. "As inspector of fisheries, I had no desire to take any undue advantage of the Native race as to netting indigenous fish, and accordingly I deemed it wise to communicate with the Marine Department drawing attention to the Maori case locally. The Marine Department secretary's reply stated: 'There is no doubt whatever that Maoris are subject to the whitebait regulations. I enclose a copy 6f the judgment given in the Supreme Court, by the full court, on an appeal by a native who had been prosecuted.. I may mention that in 1918 .proceedings were taken in Temuka against certain natives. for breaches of regulations. It' is to be noted that "the natives claimed special rights under the Treaty of* Waitangi, but that in the final proceedings before the court the plea was not pressed.'" Mr Pellett showed a reporter other decisions upon similar points. A decision of Mr W. J. Dixon, S.M, given in 1927, stated: "The treaty confers no rights cognisable in a court of law." Another statement was by Sir '"Robert Stout, Chief Justice, in an older case: "It may be that the Waitangi Treaty meant to give such exclusive rights to Maoris, but if it meant to do so, no legislation has been passed conferring this right and in the absence of such . . . no such right can be enforced."