Ground lost if Govt ‘railroads’ new bill

Press, 24 September 1988, Page 3

Ground lost if Govt ‘railroads’ new bill

By

JANE ENGLAND

Maori affairs reporter The Government would lose the ground gained in Maori fisheries negotiations if it “railroads through” the Maori Fisheries Bill, said a negotiator yesterday. Maori tribes would be severely disappointed if the Government took such a course, said the chairman of the Ngai Tahu Maori Trust Board, and member of the working party in the negotiations, Mr Tipene O’Regan. Adequate consultation with tribes and alterations to the wording of the bill were needed before it could be accepted, he said. The Government would be acting “totally out of tune” with the climate of discussion and the intentions expressed in negotiants.

“I do not believe any particular value would be scored with the rednecks by simply kicking Maoridom,” said Mr O’Regan. The fisheries negotiations came after victories by the Maori in the High Court and the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal relating to Northland fisheries. The discussions between the Crown and Maori working party members were conducted behind closed doors. But the Fishing Industry Association and the Fishing Industry Board had always publicised their concern, he said. The Ngai Tahu had been worried by the late introduction of a fresh water fisheries component contained in the bill, said Mr O’Regan. Ngai Tahu would only be “positively disposed” towards the bill

provded Maoris were assured of an opportunity for commercial success equal to that of other I.T.Q. (individual transferable quota) holders. “At the moment that principle is not secured and further discussions will need to be had before the select committee,” he said. Mr O’Regan said the tribe was also concerned at the manner in which the Government had phrased a 20-year rest from litigation before the Waitangi Tribunal and the courts. Maoris would not be able to challenge the Government with a perspective on other fisheries proposals such as marina developments or sewerage outlets. “That level of constraint is unacceptable and divisive,” he s said.