Tribe ‘cynical’ over settlement

Press, 22 November 1989, Page 8

Tribe ‘cynical’ over settlement

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington Maoris are getting very cynical about some aspects of redressing Maori fisheries claims, according to the chairman of the Ngai Tahu Trust Board, Mr Tipene O’Regan. He was presenting his trust board’s submissions on the Maori Fisheries Bill to Parliament yesterday. “It is true past injustices ought not to be resolved by creating new ones,’’ Mr O’Regan said. “Unfortunately, that saying is often used as a device to avoid doing anything about past injustices. Many Maori are getting very cynical about this.” The position the Ngai Tahu was taking towards the legislation and the various amendments that had been made to it represented a huge compromise. “There are limits beyond which we should not be pushed,” he warned. “Elements in the commercial fishing industry are laughing loudly at what they see as a huge victory over us.”

Maoris were still sitting and talking about their fisheries grievances. They were not doing what they had been advised to do — get to sea and thus force the Crown to take the Maoris to the courts instead of visa versa.

“We want quota and not cash,” Mr O’Regan said. “We’ve been offered cash under the table, with a sly grin, for the last two years.” Maoris also supported compulsory acquisition of quotas from

the industry, he said. Otherwise, the Crown would face problems in supplying quotas within the time-frame that had been agreed to, and quota delayed was quota denied.

As it was, Maoris wanted their 2.25 per cent of quota a year in 1989 quota terms and not in the, reduced quota of the future, although once they had 10 per cent that would fluctuate up and down the same as ordinary quota, he said. Mr O’Regan said the Crown needed to be committed to resolving how the quota delivery system would work. If Maoris had to fight every inch of the way then that would ruin the spirit of any agreement. The Crown was creating problems for itself and Maoris by not grasping the nettle of compulsory acquisition of fish quota, he said.

Maoris also objected strenuously to the paternalism contained with the Maori fisheries legislation. It contained assumptions that Maori management was incapable and that Ministers and their officials knew better than Maoris what was best for or appropriate for Maoris in dealing with their own property, Mr O’Regan said. It was curious indeed that the presence of the Minister of Fisheries was required to protect Maoris from themselves, then to protect their fellow citizens from Maoris.

“Maori must be a very great threat indeed,” he said.