Iwi rows hold up fisheries shares

Turf wars flaring between iwi are preventing them from getting their share of millions of dollars worth of Waitangi Fisheries Commission assets.

Just six months before half of $750 million in fishing quotas and cash is to be divided, not one of 57 iwi has reached the governance and mandate thresholds needed to comply.

A number of coastline boundary disputes are dragging out allocation of the funds, almost 13 years after the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act was passed.

More than half of the assets, now held by the Government-created trust Te Ohu Kai Moana (TOKM), are set to be divided among 57 iwi in October. But so far no iwi qualify.

Iwi must prove they have adequate governance structures in place and a mandate from the members of their tribe. They must create a separate company to manage the assets, and reach agreement with neighbouring iwi over coastline boundaries.

Populous Ngapuhi, a staunch advocate for dividing assets based on population size rather than coastline length, is among a number of iwi deadlocked by boundary disputes.

In this month's Ngapuhi newsletter, chairman Sonny Tau voiced bitter disappointment at the intransigence of the neighbouring Kaitaia-based iwi, Te Rarawa.

He criticised Te Rarawa leaders for not being prepared to compromise on a Ngapuhi offer to share income from disputed coastline.

Te Rarawa chairwoman Gloria Herbert said if there were genuine Ngapuhi claims over the area her iwi would compromise.

"There is no disputed coastline. There is no difference to split."

She said Te Rarawa maintained manawhenua (authority) and guardianship over the area, and always had.

It was hoped the Maori Fisheries Bill passed last September would see the end of bitter inter-tribal fighting that has dogged the settlement.

Few iwi were prepared to speak publicly about boundary disputes, but the Weekend Herald understands many of the 57 named in the legislation, including Tainui, Ngai Tahu, Ngati Kahunungu, Hauraki and Ngati Whatua, have been stymied by coastline disputes.

Te Ohu Kai Moana chairman Shane Jones said it was unwilling to get involved in iwi disputes. He confirmed no iwi had yet met the governance, mandate, commercial and coastline boundary threshold. He expected around 10 per cent to do so by October 1.

A former adviser to Te Ohu, who did not want to be named, said it needed to take a stronger role in resolving differences. "Who is the greatest benefactor in the delay of allocation? TOKM. That might be the reason they are not ensuring there is progress in boundary resolution".

He also accused some tribal boundary negotiators of acting with their hearts, not their heads.

"In most cases, boundary issues will have a negligible effect on the amount iwi receive."

Boundaries agreements were for calculating settlement share, and could not be legally recognised beyond the legislation.

"Iwi need to work out how much they are losing in delays."

Deepsea quota - which holds the greatest value - is allocated by a 75 per cent population/25 per cent coastline formula. Inshore quota is based on coastline length.
"If logic and common sense are being ignored then it will go to the Maori Land Court and a judge will decide. That will sit heavy on both parties, that they need a Pakeha institution to make a determination on things Maori. That to me is the greatest shame of all."

Mr Tau criticised advocates of a coastline/population split model for creating tensions that did not need to occur. "This model has created divisions where divisions were not before. We have seen the creation of new hapu, who are putting their hand up now, saying don't forget us."