Gordon McLauchlan: Let's play it cool on customary rights

I am wholeheartedly on the side of Maori in this foreshore and seabed ownership issue. I admire their frugality and restraint. When you come to think of it, the Polynesians were first into the Pacific, so if Maori co-ordinated claims with other members of the race, they could claim customary rights from longitude 160 east of Greenwich to 120 west.

They had undisturbed occupation of this region from some time after 3000BC until the thieving Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, French and British muddied these pristine waters from the 16th century.

Then there is the matter of the claim announced last week for Hawaiki or Havaiki. It matters not that no one knows how to pronounce it, let alone where it is. I once attempted to solve the problem of pronunciation when in Hawaii, or Havaii. I was walking along Kalekuana Ave one day when I was introduced to a very, very old man who had lived in Hawaii, or Havaii, for 70 years.

"Can you tell me," I asked reverentially, "whether the correct pronunciation of your homeland is Hawaii or Havaii?"

"Havaii," he said without hesitation.

"Thank you so much."

"You're velcome," he replied.

Big help, eh? Then I remembered that I've never much liked Hawaiians. Their i-s are too close together.

Anyway, the actual location of Hawaiki is a question equally vexed. A Maori friend of mine says his iwi has traced this spiritual home of the Polynesians to an island with the subsidiary name of "mana hapu", which has been linguistically corrupted into "Manhattan". His iwi is lodging a case either for restoration of this empyreal homeland or compensation based on today's valuations.

"I think you've got your tangata into a tangle, Tane," I said. "And remember that old Maori proverb, 'Never count your kumara while the kiore are still hungry'."

In the meantime, to allay some of the unreasonable fears of Pakeha, I'm devising a formula to allocate customary rights in this country in a way that will be fair to all.

Maori whose names are, say, McGregor or Mair clearly carry Scottish blood in their veins. They shall, therefore, be awarded the right to exercise a diminished customary right. They can fish in tribal waters for half a season.

Alternatively, they may tie the Scottish leg and arm behind the back while fishing through a full season. Or, if a bag limit for toheroa is 10 shellfish, they can take five, but only after signing an affidavit that they feel Maori, which is a dangerous pastime. The last time I felt a Maori I got a smack in the mush.

Also, if Maori have been in Aotearoa for about 700 years, which is the scholarly consensus, and the McLauchlans for 150, then I should be allocated proportionately a customary right of 79.3 days a year along the Otago coastline.

There is another issue, though, involving my family which I must confess with shame. I understand that compensation is being sought from the McLauchlan Clan by the Ngapuhi. In the early 19th century a Gordon Stuart McLauchlan behaved in a loud and rancorous manner while enjoying R&R in the port of Kororareka after a six-month stint in a sealing camp on the Auckland Islands.

Full of whisky and ill-will, a condition not unknown among his clansmen, he was bopped on the head and eaten by Ngapuhi, along with his bagpipes, which Maori mistook for a five-legged haggis, and his sporran, which they thought was poultry. The result was extreme tribal flatulence, widespread dyspepsia and an outbreak of twisted bowels syndrome seriously affecting the ability of the Ngapuhi to plant and eat their potatoes that season.

Which brings me to the matter of the Irish McLauchlans or, more correctly, the McLaughlins. They are seeking a royalty on the potato which they claim made Maori agriculture more prolific. It could be grown throughout the country with two crops a season in some places and brought plenitude to the people.

The McLaughlins are in the fortunate position of not having to pay a royalty to the Central American Indians who introduced the spud to Europe because they were unfortunately wiped out by the Conquistadors.

So there you go. If we play it cool and take in each other's customary rights, there's something in it for everyone. We could all spend every day at the beach.

IWINCE at news stories in which lurks the phrase "research shows that ... " When in Australia a week or so ago, I read in newspapers and watched on television a major story about gambling in New South Wales. "Research showed" that an undue and unhappy amount of gambling on the pokies was done by people in the lowest socio-economic strata. No surprise there. If you can't earn money you fall back on trying to fluke it.

However, I'm back in New Zealand only a few days when a similar "research shows" story revealed that Maori gamble more than Pakeha. What does this mean? That you can make research show just about anything you want it to.

A few days later, media carried a story that "research showed" that fatty food such as hamburgers "can be as addictive as heroin or cocaine". What does this mean? That some researchers are now addicted to hyperbole and headlines.