Peter Jackson, editor, The Northland Age
Thou shalt not ...
THE protection that was afforded the kukupa the best part of a century ago is unequivocal. It is illegal to hunt or possess the birds, measures imposed in a bid to stave off extinction. On the face of it, therefore, Te Runanga-a-Iwi o Ngapuhi chairman Sonny Tau will be hard pressed to explain the behaviour that now seems likely to see him in court, where the maximum penalty for the offence he has not denied committing would be a $100,000 fine. That might be the least of his worries though.
The fact that Mr Tau was apparently apprehended with five of the birds - well dead - under his jacket as he prepared to board a flight home from Invercargill has raised questions in some circles regarding his fitness to lead the country's biggest iwi, which is now about to embark upon the process of settling its Treaty claims. Lawyer and Far North District Councillor Willow-Jean Prime has called for his resignation, and Mita Harris, a passionate champion of the kukupa, has resigned from the settlement process as the Ngati Toro hapu representative.
It is inconceivable that Mr Tau will not be charged, unless some extraordinary circumstances that have yet to be declared come into play. Indeed, it would be doing him no favours to allow him to escape prosecution. Whatever the court's response might be, however, the real price will likely be demanded by the people he has so energetically represented for so long.
Mr Tau appears to have very little wriggle room. And, to his significant credit, he has made no effort at all to justify his actions, whatever they were, or to declare himself to be above the law. That might be no more than an intelligent response to a difficult situation, a bid to minimise damage to his reputation and future as an iwi leader, but it could also be a sign that Mr Tau is at heart a decent man, who, unlike many these days, is prepared to admit fault. Whatever prompted his admission that he had made a mistake that he now deeply regretted, it should not derail the process that must now take place.
It is a matter of real regret that others have not accepted that the laws of this land apply to all, however. David Rankin, another prominent member of Ngapuhi, said last week that Mr Tau had done nothing wrong in terms of Ngapuhi tikanga, in that the Treaty of Waitangi guaranteed Maori the full, exclusive and undisturbed possession of this country's flora and fauna. The fundamental problem, he said, was that the law had not caught up with the Treaty.
One hopes that young Ngapuhi who might already have scant regard for protection laws don't hear him and decide that if it's good enough for one of the more prominent iwi members to declare a legal right on their behalf they are free to take the birds where and when they feel like it.
There is no doubting the significance of the kukupa to Maori. Historically those who have been charged with taking or possessing the birds have claimed that they were intended for an ailing elder, and this newspaper, at least, does not question the sincerity of the view that a final meal of this particular delicacy has deep and genuine meaning. The reality, however, is that this bird is flirting with extinction, a fate that would have major ramifications for the future of native forests and all the other species that depend upon them.
The effort to stave off extinction is not an exercise in conservation on the part of people who have no understanding of Maori culture. Indeed, Mita Harris, who chairs the Northland Conservation Board and works harder than anyone to protect the kukupa, and who has deplored Mr Tau's reported actions, is himself Ngapuhi. It goes without saying that he has a greater understanding than most of the repercussions of the bird's extinction, and an equal appreciation of the place it holds in the culture of his people.
The real tragedy of this unseemly business will not be the fate of five birds taken in the Deep South, but its potential to reinforce the view already held by some that those birds that remain are effectively the property of Maori, and are fair game whatever the law, or indeed some Maori (Ngati Hine imposed a rahui across its rohe to give the birds another layer of protection in 1996) might say.
It is little wonder that Mr Harris is so appalled by the actions of a man who should have known better, given that they threaten to undermine his work of a lifetime.
Whether or not Mr Tau should pay for what he says was a mistake with his leadership role is a question for Ngapuhi alone, but there will be many in the wider community who will be hoping he survives. He does not have universal support even within his iwi, and other agendas might well come into play, but the North does not have leadership resources to burn, and Ngapuhi should at least take some deep breaths before taking any action from which there will be no return. It would not be a bad idea if everyone who has a view waited to see what comes out of the process that is now under way rather than rushing to judgement.
In the meantime it would be helpful if those who believe that Maori have a Treaty-given right to drive multiple species into extinction kept those views to themselves, and devoted their energies to preserving what remains of the natural environment of which they claim to be the guardians.
Unfortunately the furore over Mr Tau's apparent breach of the law protecting the kukupa will probably not be matched by public sentiment regarding the conviction of four men in the Kaitaia District Court last week over the illegal possession of paua from Ahipara. The humble paua does not fill the same pivotal role within its environment that the kukupa does in the forest, but it too is approaching local extinction, despite the laws designed to protect it. Hopefully paua will remain available for all for a very long time to come, but that will depend upon the success or failure of those who are fighting to protect it.
The overriding factor in the likely demise of the species is simple greed. The four men convicted last week had a permit to take 60 of the shellfish, with no size limit, but took almost three times that number, only two of which were of the minimum legal size. Like the kukupa, paua are not especially effective breeders, and the point might already have been reached where the Ahipara beds have lost their ability to recover naturally.
Those who steal paua steal from their whole community, and generations yet to come, and deserve to be punished, by the courts and their community. The penalties handed down last week should be applauded.
At the end of the day there isn't much that a judge can do to prevent people from poaching paua or pigeons, but every opportunity to send a message to those who would behave selfishly must be taken. That was done in Kaitaia last week, and whatever the outcome of Sonny Tau's 'mistake,' that too will hopefully have lasting positive repercussions for the protection of a species that is rightly regarded as precious.
News snippets from the Far North.