Truth springs out of the earth
and righteousness looks down from Heaven
Psalm 85, verse 11
The Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Muriwhenua Fishing Claim was released in June 1988. It dealt with various alleged failings of the Crown to meet its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi in regards to the fishing rights of the Muriwhenua tribes of the Far North. The Tribunal reported its findings in the hope that it would assist the Crown and Muriwhenua Maori in the negotiations that both were then engaged in.
It was a solemn pledge, in the Treaty of Waitangi, that the Crown guaranteed to Maori the full, exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands, estates, forests, fisheries and other properties for so long as they might wish and desire to retain the same in their possession. The principle was that despite settlement, Maori would not be relieved of their properties without some further agreement. It was a high ideal when pitted against the certainty of European settlement at the time, but sensible, necessary and proper all the same. The principle survives in the international instruments to which most modern states adhere, that all peoples have the right to retain their properties for so long as they like, and to develop them along either or both customary or modern lines.
The Waitangi Tribunal
Seven hearings were held between December 1986 and April 1988 before the Tribunal of Chief Judge Eddie Durie (presiding), Bishop Manuhuia Bennett, Sir Monita Delamere, Georgina Te Heuheu, Professor Keith Sorrenson, and Bill Wilson.
The Tribunal found that the Crown had failed to meet its Treaty obligations – ‘it is all too clear that over the years numerous blatant and serious breaches have occurred of the Treaty guarantee’ – and that the Muriwhenua tribes had lost a viable fishing industry. It also found that the quota management system, as then applied, was in fundamental conflict with the Treaty’s principles and terms because it apportioned to non-Maori ‘the full, exclusive and undisturbed possession of the property in fishing that to Maori was guaranteed’. The Tribunal considered, however, that the system did not have to be in conflict with the Treaty and could instead be beneficial to both parties, if an agreement or arrangement could be reached.
The Treaty is on trial. It is an historic development that Government has arranged a working party of Crown and Maori representatives to negotiate fishing terms. Such a move was contemplated by the Treaty but has not been tried before. It comes now at a time when the parties are not so much free to seek change as compelled to that course. Now, after a century of debate, extreme positions have become entrenched and there is a weight of prejudice on both sides to overcome. The question is whether the spirit of the Treaty can still be found.
It is not a question of compromise but of recognising the contribution that both Treaty parties can make to building a unified whole. The spirit of the Treaty as found in statements in the British Houses of Commons and Lords, well over a century ago, is not dead. It has simply found a new home in the universal and regional instruments of the international community.
The Waitangi Tribunal
The Tribunal had been asked to defer making any recommendations while the negotiations between the parties were progressing, but it did recommend that the Crown meet the claimants’ reasonable costs.
|
