CCPR/C/70/D/547/1993 Page 10 was indeed a mandate for the settlement, provided that the Treaty itself was not compromised, and that in the light of the report it was reasonable for the Crown to believe it was justified in proceeding. The State party also refers to the opinion of the Waitangi Tribunal, "that the settlement should proceed despite the inevitable compromise to the independent rangatiratanga 10 of the dissentients.... On the basis then that the settlement is to introduce new national policy for the benefit of tribes, to perfect rights rather than abrogate them and with protection for the customary position, we consider this settlement can be dealt with not just at an iwi level, but a pan iwi level, where the actual consent of each iwi is not a pre-requisite, and a general consensus can be relied upon". The State party emphasizes that responsibility for satisfying the Government that the proposal had the support of Maori lay with the Negotiators, and that the process of internal decision making within Maori was not a matter of direct concern to the Government which was entitled to rely on the report of the Negotiators. The State party further refers to the Committee's decision in Grand Chief Donald Marshall et al. v. Canada 11 where the Human Rights Committee rejected a claim that all tribal groups should have a right to participate in consultations on aboriginal matters. 7.5 As to the authors' criticism of the Quota Management System, the State party states that the system was introduced out of the need for effective measures to conserve the depleted inshore fishery. In this context, the State party submits that it had a duty to all New Zealanders to conserve and manage the resource for future generations. The State party recalls that the decisions by the Waitangi Tribunal and the Court of Appeal, while criticising the initial implementation, recognised that the purpose and intention of the Quota Management System was not necessarily in conflict with the principles and terms of the Treaty of Waitangi. The State party emphasizes that while the Quota Management System imposed a new regime which changed the nature of the Maori commercial fishing interest, this was based on the reasonable and objective needs of overall sustainable management. 7.6 With regard to the Committee’s statement when declaring the communication admissible that only at the determination of the merits of the case will the Committee be able to determine the relevance of Article 1 to the authors’ claims under Article 27, the State party submits that it would be most concerned if the Committee were to depart from the position which has been accepted by States parties to the Covenant and by the Committee itself that the Committee has no jurisdiction to consider claims regarding the rights contained in Article 1. Those rights have long been recognised as collective rights. Therefore, they fall outside the Committee’s mandate to consider complaints by individuals, and it is not within the ambit of the Optional Protocol procedures for individuals purporting to represent Maori to raise alleged violations of the collective rights contained in Article 1. The State party further argues that the rights in Article 1 attach to “peoples” of a state in their entirety, not to minorities, whether indigenous or not, within the borders of an independent and democratic state. Moreover, the State party challenges the authors’ authority to speak on behalf of the majority of the members of their tribes. 7.7 With respect to the authors’ claim that they are victims of a violation of Article 14(1) of the 10 rangatiratanga: the ability to exercise authority over assets, both physical and intangible. 11 Communication No. 205/1986, Views adopted on 4 November 1991, CCPR/C/43/D/205/1986.