Clark's anger subsides over 'civil war' submission

By AUDREY YOUNG, political editor

Prime Minister Helen Clark has softened her stance against Maori Language Commission chief executive Haami Piripi over his submission that the Foreshore and Seabed Bill might start a civil war.

But Opposition parties are expected to maintain their calls for Mr Piripi to resign.

The Government's attitude may have mellowed after Mr Piripi revealed that he had informed the commission which employs him that he intended making a submission.

The Government may have more trouble with commission chairman Patu Hohepa, who apparently supports Mr Haami's right to speak.

"What he puts up on behalf of his people is his people's business, not the board's," Dr Hohepa was reported by the NZ Press Association as saying.

Maori Affairs Minister Parekura Horomia conveyed the Government's displeasure to Dr Hohepa.

Early yesterday, Helen Clark said that Mr Piripi was either a political activist or a public servant.

"Make your choice."

But by late yesterday she said she was heartened by his "apologetic" and "regretful" media interviews.

Mr Piripi made a highly critical written submission to the select committee considering the Foreshore and Seabed Bill in his role as "chief of Ahipara," in the Far North.

He said yesterday that he did not think it would get so much media prominence and he now thought the language was "a bit strong".

"But in my capacity as an ordinary New Zealander, I do think the legislation as is proposed will be divisive and lead to conflict," he told National Radio.

National Maori affairs spokesman Gerry Brownlee said Mr Piripi had to resign for standing by his "outlandish" comments then adding to them.

They came on top of critical comments made last week about National Party leader Don Brash.

Act MP Stephen Franks said: "National should be vowing not to rest while Mr Piripi retains his state pay cheque."

'Lies, theft, murder and racism'

What Haami Piripi's submission says:

* Our commitment as Maori to our mutual nationhood could never be in question, whereas in the case of Pakeha and in particular Government, New Zealand history is riddled with factual examples of lies, theft, murder and racism all characterised by settlers with a greed for land and resources.

* In the face of its own Court of Appeal decision, a Waitangi Tribunal recommendation and the overwhelming objection by Maori people, the Government had continued down a path of action which is confiscating in nature and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

* This country could be brought to its knees by internal conflict and perhaps civil war over the coming decades as a direct result of this bill.

* It destroys any confidence we might have in Parliament and in Government to govern fairly in this country.

* Nothing that is currently before Parliament comes anywhere near the potential this bill has to blow this country apart.