It is a matter of real regret that others have not accepted that the laws of this land apply to all, however. David Rankin, another prominent member of Ngapuhi, said last week that Mr Tau had done nothing wrong in terms of Ngapuhi tikanga, in that the Treaty of Waitangi guaranteed Maori the full, exclusive and undisturbed possession of this country's flora and fauna. The fundamental problem, he said, was that the law had not caught up with the Treaty.
One hopes that young Ngapuhi who might already have scant regard for protection laws don't hear him and decide that if it's good enough for one of the more prominent iwi members to declare a legal right on their behalf they are free to take the birds where and when they feel like it.
There is no doubting the significance of the kukupa to Maori. Historically those who have been charged with taking or possessing the birds have claimed that they were intended for an ailing elder, and this newspaper, at least, does not question the sincerity of the view that a final meal of this particular delicacy has deep and genuine meaning. The reality, however, is that this bird is flirting with extinction, a fate that would have major ramifications for the future of native forests and all the other species that depend upon them.
The effort to stave off extinction is not an exercise in conservation on the part of people who have no understanding of Maori culture. Indeed, Mita Harris, who chairs the Northland Conservation Board and works harder than anyone to protect the kukupa, and who has deplored Mr Tau's reported actions, is himself Ngapuhi. It goes without saying that he has a greater understanding than most of the repercussions of the bird's extinction, and an equal appreciation of the place it holds in the culture of his people.
The real tragedy of this unseemly business will not be the fate of five birds taken in the Deep South, but its potential to reinforce the view already held by some that those birds that remain are effectively the property of Maori, and are fair game whatever the law, or indeed some Maori (Ngati Hine imposed a rahui across its rohe to give the birds another layer of protection in 1996) might say.
It is little wonder that Mr Harris is so appalled by the actions of a man who should have known better, given that they threaten to undermine his work of a lifetime.
Whether or not Mr Tau should pay for what he says was a mistake with his leadership role is a question for Ngapuhi alone, but there will be many in the wider community who will be hoping he survives. He does not have universal support even within his iwi, and other agendas might well come into play, but the North does not have leadership resources to burn, and Ngapuhi should at least take some deep breaths before taking any action from which there will be no return. It would not be a bad idea if everyone who has a view waited to see what comes out of the process that is now under way rather than rushing to judgement.
In the meantime it would be helpful if those who believe that Maori have a Treaty-given right to drive multiple species into extinction kept those views to themselves, and devoted their energies to preserving what remains of the natural environment of which they claim to be the guardians.
Unfortunately the furore over Mr Tau's apparent breach of the law protecting the kukupa will probably not be matched by public sentiment regarding the conviction of four men in the Kaitaia District Court last week over the illegal possession of paua from Ahipara. The humble paua does not fill the same pivotal role within its environment that the kukupa does in the forest, but it too is approaching local extinction, despite the laws designed to protect it. Hopefully paua will remain available for all for a very long time to come, but that will depend upon the success or failure of those who are fighting to protect it.
The overriding factor in the likely demise of the species is simple greed. The four men convicted last week had a permit to take 60 of the shellfish, with no size limit, but took almost three times that number, only two of which were of the minimum legal size. Like the kukupa, paua are not especially effective breeders, and the point might already have been reached where the Ahipara beds have lost their ability to recover naturally.
Those who steal paua steal from their whole community, and generations yet to come, and deserve to be punished, by the courts and their community. The penalties handed down last week should be applauded.
At the end of the day there isn't much that a judge can do to prevent people from poaching paua or pigeons, but every opportunity to send a message to those who would behave selfishly must be taken. That was done in Kaitaia last week, and whatever the outcome of Sonny Tau's 'mistake,' that too will hopefully have lasting positive repercussions for the protection of a species that is rightly regarded as precious.
