Government warned not to let subtribes split from iwi

By AUDREY YOUNG, political editor

The Ngapuhi tribal authority has warned the Government that it risks opening up a Pandora's box of further litigation if it gives iwi status to Ngati Hine in the north and Rongomai Wahine in the east under fisheries allocation legislation.

Both Ngati Hine and Rongomai Wahine asked the select committee considering the legislation to recognise them as separate iwi (tribes), rather than as hapu (subtribes) of Ngapuhi and Ngati Kahungunu respectively, as the Waitangi Fisheries Commission classified them.

It is believed the MPs were persuaded by their arguments and if they form part of the committee's recommendations, due out this week, it will represent a significant shift in Government policy.

Sonny Tau, chairman of the Ngapuhi tribal council, which represents 125 hapu, said the select committee could not have thoroughly thought through the implications of such a change and it could set back the fisheries settlement process by 10 years.

"If any one hapu was to be given iwi status through the back door, every hapu in the country would have to be considered equally," he said.

"If hapu are recognised as iwi, it will open up a Pandora's box of litigation between hapu and their parent iwi."

Ngaphui would spend more time in litigation than in developing an economic base for the iwi. "The only people who will benefit are the lawyers on the iwi litigation gravy train."

But Mr Tau distanced himself from comments by Ngati Kahungunu chief executive Ngahiwi Tomoana that such a decision smacked of "utu" (revenge) over opposition to the foreshore and seabed bill.

"We have an excellent relationship with the Government and see the foreshore and seabed issue as totally separate to the Maori Fisheries Bill."

Prime Minister Helen Clark said there was absolutely no substance to the claim that a change in policy was about seeking revenge for the tribes' active opposition to the foreshore policy.

"The caucus has had reports back from its members on the select committee about the nature of the representations that have been made, and the debate that has been going on in the committee," she said at the post-Cabinet press conference yesterday.

She said the committee would have to bear in mind whether it wanted to get involved directly in deciding who qualified for iwi status and who did not qualify.

And she hinted that the bill might allow a process, after a period of time, for other hapu to make representations to Parliament to have their status altered.

Asked if it could open up a Pandora's box, she said, "In one sense, yes; in another sense, no", and she said "Yes," in the sense that other groups who had not made representations for inclusion might feel that "if they had known they could have, they would have".

"On the other hand, my understanding is that once the legislation is back and passed, that's it for the schedule [of recognised iwi].

"That doesn't mean that others mightn't try over the years subsequently to get the status that mandated iwi organisations have got. But it would close it off for the present time."

Mr Tau rejected a claim in the Ngati Hine submission to the committee that it had 50,000 members. The 2001 census, which was the basis for allocation, showed it had only 855 people.