N.Z. heading for apartheid---M.P.

Press, 21 July 1988, Page 1

N.Z. heading for apartheid---M.P.

By

BRENDON BURNS

political reporter

Senior Government Ministers last evening declined to comment on statements by the Minister . of; Revenue;::Mr. de Gleene, suggesting New Zealand could be heading . .for an apartheid-type system ; of race laws. His comments stemmed from concern expressed last week about race relations by the Minister of Overseas Trade, Mr Moore.

Mr de Cleene, in a radio interview, criticised a recent High Court decision that a Maori fisherman could not be prosecuted for exceeding the limit on the number of crayfish allowed to be taken. He said he could not tolerate a law which allowed a Maori fisherman to escape prosecution but not a European. “Two laws: a house divided against itself cannot stand,” said Mr de Cleene.

He also criticised the perpetual nature of land and fishing resource claims before the Waitangi Tribunal. Lawyers would keep on providing fresh claims if allowed to do so, and he wanted to see the Treaty of Waitangi renegotiated to settle issues “in one fell swoop.” The Deputy Prime Minister,

Mr Palmer, was approached for comment, but declined. He is the architect of the Treaty of Waitangi (State Enterprises) Bill, giving the Waitangi Tribunal the right to rule on Maori resource claims. The Minister of Maori Affairs, Mr Wetere, also declined to comment.

Asked to amplify his radio interview statements, Mr de Cleene also declined. In the interview he had warned Maori activists that their claims were scaring middle-class New Zealanders into going to Australia. If that continued, he said, there would be no jobs for young Maoris.

The situation was intolerable for people wanting to invest, he said.

Mr de Cleene’s comments were made less than a week after the Minister of Overseas Trade, Mr Moore, criticised certain Maoris as being racist. He said they had no right to suggest European New Zealanders had any fewer rights in New Zealand or less love for their country.

Mr Moore had warned that New Zealand was in a race against time to settle ethnic issues before social cohesion was threatened.

By

DAVID LUCAS,

in Wellington

The Deputy Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court, Judge McHugh, yesterday dismissed allegations that having a majority of Maori people on the Waitangi Tribunal would lead to biased decisions.

few years the Treaty of Waitangi had assumed importance and influence to the extent that New Zealanders were having difficulty in coping with it, said Judge McHugh. There was a growing tendency for some people who did not favour the policy behind the Treaty of Waitangi legislation to criticise the tribunal. The structure and composition of the tribunal had been accused of bias and lack of balance, but these statements were being made in some cases by people who knew no better. Their comments were irrational, irresponsible and bordering on contemptible. “In other cases they are also being made by some people who should know better, but who obviously have had a rush of blood

Such allegations were an affront to the integrity of the members of the tribunal, Judge McHugh told the dominion conference of Federated Farmers in Wellington. Judge McHugh said critics were saying that because a tribunal member was a Maori he would make decisions in favour of Maoris; and because a member was a non-Maori he would find for nonMaoris. That was a dangerous premise on which to base a conclusion and should be publicly refuted, said Judge McHugh. All decisions of the tribunal set up since the Treaty of Waitangi Act was amended in 1985 had been unanimous, even though there was provision for members to record their dissent. Within the space of a

ter, Mr Palmer, that private owners of farm and other land were not at risk of losing their land through Maori claims under the Treaty of Waitangi Act. The disputes which came before the tribunal were between Maori people and the Crown. There was no provision in the act or elsewhere in the general law which would enable the Crown to require owners of private land to hand it over to Maori claimants. The Crown’s power to compulsorily acquire private land was limited under the Public Works Act. Judge McHugh said the tribunal could listen to grievances concerning private land, but had no power to make a binding recommendation in those cases.

and not thought the matter through or read it properly.” Judge McHugh said the tribunal’s Muriwhenua report was not only a repository of facts about Maori fishing history, but it contained explanations of Maori values and attitudes that should be compulsory reading for New Zealanders of any race. The report gave real significance to the Maori concept of property and the criteria behind Maori thinking. The bi-cultural structure of the tribunal was unique and its work and charter were arousing considerable interest overseas, particularly in Canada and Australia, said Judge McHugh. He reinforced comments made to the conference the previous day by the Deputy Prime Minis-