POLITICAL REVIEW • POLYNESIA largest outmigration from the islands­ Crown took steps to extinguish native confirms the need for a resumption of title to the land by "fair purchase." But Hawaiian control. A land base under no such measures were taken to extin­ exclusive jurisdiction of Native Hawai­ guish the Maori property right to'the ians is the most intelligent answer. fisheries that was recognized and guar­ In the next year, public confronta­ anteed by the treaty. With the estab­ tions between the Office ofHawaiian lishment ofthe New Zealand Parlia­ Affairs and sovereignty groups will ment in 1854, the government simply escalate. The governor, meanwhile, is arrogated to itself both the freshwater likely to use this as a ploy to continue and marine fisheries, and controlled state control ofnative resources. The them by the issuance oflicenses for senator will probably be looking for an domestic and commercial use. Exploi­ easy way out. Hanging in the balance tation ofthe marine fishery was small­ are over a million acres of Hawaiian scale and benign until the 1960s. trust lands and untold millions of dol­ Thereafter, government encourage­ lars in potential revenues. ment of joint ventures with transna­ HAUNANI-KAY TRASK tional fishing corporations in the inter­ est ofeconomic growth put the inshore fishery under stress. In 1986 the gov­ MAORI ISSUES ernment introduced the Quota Man­ The attempt to settle tribal claims to agement System to reduce the number New·Zealand's·cmlstalfisheties·was oHishers, and toconfrol tne level of the most important issue affecting catch. Fishers and fishing companies Maori interests during the year under were issued Individual Transferable review. The government agreed to con­ Quotas to catch specified amounts of cede 50 percent ofthe total fishery to designated species offish. The quotas the Maori over a twenty-year period, were treated as individual property, but withdrew the enabling legislation tradable on the open market. in the face ofmounting public opposi­ In 1985, before the quota system tion. However, the tribes did regain became effective, the Muriwhenua control of10 percent ofthe fishery, and Incorporation, on behalf ofthe Maori the balance oftheir claims remained tribes in the far north, lodged a claim before the courts in June 1989. The with the Waitangi Tribunal that the nature and development ofthe Maori individual quota fisheries management claim are discussed here. system contravened Maori fishing Under Article II ofthe Treaty of rights guaranteed by the Treaty of Waitangi, 1840, the British Crown Waitangi (Norman 1988, 184). That guaranteed the Maori people ofNew guarantee was incorporated in Section Zealand "the full, exclusive, and undis­ 88(2) ofthe Fisheries Act of1983, turbed possession oftheir Lands and which stated that nothing in the act Estates, Forests, Fisheries, and other shall affect any Maori fishing rights properties which they may collectively (Waitangi Tribunal 1988, 6). Since and individually possess." Within eight Maori fishing rights were not defined years ofthe treaty being signed, the in the act, the tribes ofMuriwhenua THE CONTEMPORARY PACIFIC· SPRING 1990 adduced evidence oftraditional fishing dence that the Maori had relinquished grounds, defined by landmark coordi­ their fishing rights, which were recog­ nates and extending 25 miles out to sea, nized in Section 88(2) ofthe Fisheries as well as the species caught there. On Act. He concluded that the Quota 30 September 1987, while the tribunal Management System must be stopped was still sitting, the Maori Council and on an interim basis because it con­ Muriwhenua Incorporation sought a travened Maori fishing rights (Greig, J High Court injunction against the min­ CP 559/87, CP 610/87, CP 614/87). istry of agriculture and fisheries for The government was advised to negoti­ issuing quotas for squid and jack ate with its Maori treaty partner how mackerel. They claimed that the minis­ best to recognize these fishing rights. try was issuing a property right in a Both parties were given until 6 June fishery that belonged to the tribes. 1988 to resolve the matter, and a joint On the evidence put before the eight-member working party was Waitangi Tribunal, Judge Greig was established. satisfied that the tribes ofMuriwhenua The four Maori members of the fished at least 12 miles out to sea, and working party asserted 100 percent that the area ofseas fished was prop­ tribal ownership ofthe fisheries, but erty in the same way land was. He con­ conceded a willingness to share 50 per­ cluded that the issue of quotas for the cent with their treaty partner. The two species named affected Maori fish­ Maori were playing for high stakes ihg ti~hts-al1dwanherefore-contrary since the industry-is worth-over a bil­ to Section 88(2) ofthe Fisheries Act. lion dollars and the government Accordingly he issued an order of receives NZ$2I million per year in restraint on the Quota Management license fees. But government negotia­ System within the area ofthe Muri­ tors were only prepared to concede a whenua fisheries claim (Greig CP package giving 29 percent to the tribes. 553/87). This consisted of all ofthe inshore fish­ A much more comprehensive ery (19 percent of the total fishery), and injunction to suspend the Individual 12.5 percent ofthe deep water fishery Transferable Quota regime over all (10 percent ofthe total) (New Zealand tribal fisheries was lodged in the High ParliamentJoint Working Group Court on 30 October 1987 by the 1988). With neither side willing to com­ Maori Council, Tainui Trust Board, promise, two separate reports were and Ngai Tahu Trust Board, the latter issued, and the working party dis­ representing the entire South Island. solved. On the basis ofthe evidence in the Reluctant to go back to court, Min­ Muriwhenua case, Judge Greig ister of State-Owned Enterprise accepted that the Maori had a highly Richard Prebble and Minister ofFish­ developed fishery around the entire eries Colin Moyle entered into direct coast ofNew Zealand prior to 1840. negotiations with the Maori members The fishery was divided into controlled ofthe working party. The result was zones defined by tribal boundaries the Maori Fisheries Bill, introduced along the coastline. There was no evi- into Parliament on 22 September 1988. POLITICAL REVIEW • POLYNESIA 173

The bill was designed to give effect to island with an area of approximately Maori fishing rights by conceding 50 260 square kilometers. The Niue con­ percent ofthe Individual Transferable stitution, adopted in 1974, provides all Quotas, but at a rate of2.5 percent per Niueans with New Zealand citizenship year over a twenty-year period. Maori and unrestricted access to New negotiators accepted this formula, but Zealand. Population figures record a objected to Sections 17 and 21 ofthe steady drop in the number of Niueans bill, which would have denied recourse resident on Niue and a corresponding to the courts, or the tribunal, for a rise in the number living in New twenty-year period. The tribes filed Zealand. The population dropped their case in the High Court as a fall­ from 3578 in 1979 to 2988 in December back position. Pakeha feelings over 1985. By December 1986 it had fallen to Maori claims, to land as well as to 2757, and by October 1987 the total fisheries, were running high. The gov­ was down to 2414. ernment was under intense pressure The steady, dramatic decline in from the fishing industry as well, with Niue's population is attributable, at fishers threatening to withhold quota least in part, to the introduction of a documents and resource rentals. The regular air service to New Zealand dur­ government withdrew the Maori Fish­ ing the 1970s, initially run by Air New eries Bill (NZH, 5 Oct 1988). Instead, it Zealand. Ironically, the disruption of conceded 10 percent ofthe fishery that air service emerged in 1988-1989 immediately,with a grantofNZ$:to as Niue's most urgerit problem. The million to establish the tribes in the island lost its regular air service in industry, leaving the issue of control of April 1988, when New Zealand's min­ the remaining 90 percent to be decided istry oftransport banned Air Nauru for by the court. This formula mollified allegedly failing to comply with inter­ Pakeha backlash, because it was in national safety standards. Niueans had accord with the Pakeha mind-set that to rely on ad hoc air charters after that. Maori people constitute only 10 per­ The results were a disruption in the cent ofthe population and are there­ conduct ofgovernment and business fore entitled to only 10 percent of on the island, a devastating effect on resources. At the same time it shifted tourism, and an adverse effect on com­ the conflict out ofthe political arena munications between Niueans living in and into the courtroom. The Maori New Zealand and those on Niue. Council and the tribes set about pre­ A New Zealand-based firm ofcon­ paring their evidence for the hearing of sultants, McGregor and Company, the Maori Fisheries case in August was selected to assist the government 1989. of Niue to reestablish a commercially viable air service that meets the RANGINUI J. WALKER requirements ofthe Niuean people. Discussions began with various air NIUE transport operators currently operating Self-governing in free association with in the South Pacific region to assess New Zealand, Niue is a raised coral their ability to supply air services to