Fishing evidence questioned

Press, 2 August 1989, Page 4

Fishing evidence questioned

Three Crown and fishing industry historians came under heavy attack in an independent report presented to the Waitangi Tribunal in Wellington yesterday. But the “independence” of the report’s author was also questioned.

The report’s author, Dr George Habib, was commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal to write an overview report of all evidence presented on the Ngai Tahu fishing claim. Most of the report was presented at a hearing in Christchurch, but the final part of the report is being heard in Wellington.

Three historians are strongly criticised in Dr Habib’s report. But Dr Habib’s statements were later challenged by the deputy chairman of the

tribunal, Judge Ashley McHugh. Dr Habib, an Auckland fishing consultant, referred to three historians — Mr David Alexander, Dr Harry Morton and Mr Kevin Molloy. These men had taken a mono-cultural approach to their work, producing a mono-cultural result, he said. Mr Alexander had done a good job of summarising main events in the southern whaling and sealing industries, but he had not included any Maori perspective in his observations, said Dr Habib. This was not surprising as his sources were mainly pakeha writings, he said.

“That Ngai Tahu customs and traditions which were associated with whaling and sealing did not feature in the pakeha

texts was to be expected,” said Dr Habib.

As still happens today, the aspects of Maori culture and behaviour which attracted media attention in the old days were the sensational. Unless Maori wrote about these things themselves, they were never given any attention, let alone weight, in the media or elsewhere in the written record, he said. “Maori information, especially that derived from the period of oral tradition, is often discounted or written off entirely, and put into the category of myths, legends, and fairy tales.”

Dr Morton and Mr Molloy had also confined their work to pakeha sources and “mind sets.” But just because pakehas had not written about the

Maori perspective ■on whaling and sealing this did not mean there was no such perspective. There was, in fact, a considerable body of traditional information on the subject, said Dr Habib.

Ngai Tahu are claiming most of the fisheries around the South Island, including a deep sea fisheries. The fishing industry and Crown evidence on whaling and sealing is being used to suggest Ngai Tahu only had rights over specific areas close to the shore, and not rights over the seas.

Judge McHugh said he believed the three historians had done considerable research and provided the tribunal with valuable information. It was all very well for Dr Habib to refer to in-

formation contained in Ngai Tahu’s oral tradition, but there was “a severe lack of any evidence of this information,” he said. Dr Habib had drawn strong conclusions and his report sometimes seemed more like “a submission on behalf of the claimants (Ngai Tahu)” than an objective view of existing evidence, said Judge McHugh. Dr Habib replied that there was plenty of evidence but as he had not been commissioned to present that evidence he had not done so.

Ngai Tahu’s senior Counsel, Mr Paul Temm Q.C., later brought attention to a number of recorded examples from oral tradition that had been presented to the tribunal. As many of the examples were in Maori it

was perhaps not surprising they had been forgotten, he said.

As for being an advocate for Ngai Tahu, Dr Habib said he was a fisheries consultant but also a Maori.

Throughout most of the evidence presented to the tribunal there had been a “sad lack of a Maori dimension.” This monocultural bias meant much of the evidence was not balanced, said Dr Habib.

If, in drawing attention to this, he was seen to be losing his objectivity, then there was not much he could do about it, he said.

Dr Habib is a descendant on his father’s side from Ngati Tuwharetoa and on his mother’s side from Te Arawa (Ngati Whakaue).