20 APRIL NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE 999

not withdraw are annexed to this report along with a transcript of the evidence presented to the enquiry.

Conclusions

The creation of these proposed Taiapure fisheries were generally supported by the recreational and commercial fishing interests. The noted exception was M. Hansen who saw his livelihood as a commercial fisherman being endangered. In respect of this aspect of his objection if he conclusively established pecuniary loss he would be justified particularly as the legislation does not allow or provide compensation for commercial fishermen suffering loss because a taiapure fishery is established. This is a matter that legislation should address rather than this report.

Moving to the public in general, again there appears to be support excepting M. J. Appleyard whose objecting to boundary definition as advertised in the statutory notices and gazetting may upon investigation be proven justified; his general objection goes to the very legislation rather than to the proposal, before this inquiry, Mr Hansen expressed similar sentiments in alleging discrimination in the legislation.

A more valid objection is the definition of estuarine and littoral coastal waters; these unless clarified by legislation will prove to be fruitful area for future objectors not to mention the legal profession.

Of concern to this inquiry is the failure in the legislation in providing proper servicing of the Inquiry; but for the generosity of the registrar Maori Land Court, Takitimu, in providing clerical and administrative support the inquiry may never have got off the ground, as it is not the province of the Judge to provide this back up. I compare this to the Waitangi Tribunal where Maori Land Court Judges are often presiding in claims hearings; it is clear that the Tribunal is charged with provision of all necessary support services.

The evidence is such that if the Minister intends recommending a Taiapure fishery as sought nothing before this inquiry should inhibit that course of action; as well there is no justification for any recommendations amending the proposal.

Primary Recommendation

That the Minister take no action as a result of the objections and submissions made to this Tribunal.

Ancillary Recommendations

(1) That the legal boundaries already published be checked for accuracy taking into account the submission of Mr M. J. Appleyard.

(2) That the Taiapure Fisheries legislation be re-visited with particular emphasis on the following:

(a) a definition of estuarine and littoral coastal water

(b) clarification of the role of the Registrar and staff of the Maori Land Court. There must be provision in the legislation for the servicing of the Inquiry

(c) the compensation by the Crown of persons who can prove pecuniary loss because of the creation of a Taiapure fishery.

Dated at Rotorua the 21st day of October 1994.

H. K. HINGSTON (Judge).

(B) Decisions of the Minister of Fisheries

Pursuant to section 54G (9) (b) (ii) of the Fisheries Act 1983, the Minister of Fisheries hereby publishes his decisions made in regard to the report and recommendations of the tribunal considering the Palliser Bay Taiapure application.

i. In regard to the primary recommendation contained in the Tribunal Report. Having regard to the matters specified in section 54 (b) (3) of the Fisheries Act 1983, I am satisfied that recommending the Governor-General declare a taiapure for the two areas described as Te Kopi and Ke Kumenaga is appropriate.

ii. I have decided to refer the ancillary recommendations (a) and (b) of the Tribunal, regarding the definition of estuarine and littoral coastal water, and clarification of the role of the registrar and staff of the Maori Land Court to the Customary Regulations Working Party for consideration in the process of reviewing the taiapure provisions.

iii. In regard to ancillary recommendation (c), I have declined to accept this recommendation on the basis that I do not consider the creation of a taiapure would itself impinge on commercial fishing rights to the point where compensation could be sought.

Dated at Wellington this 13th day of April 1995.

Hon. D. L. KIDD, Minister of Fisheries.

g02608

Education

Education Act 1989

The Nuhaka School Board of Trustees Election Invalidation Notice

Pursuant to clause 9 (3) (a) of the Sixth Schedule to the Education Act 1989, and acting with authority delegated by the Minister of Education, I hereby invalidate the election of the parent representatives, which closed on 31 March 1995, for the Board of Trustees of Nuhaka School.

This action is being taken because there has occurred in connection with the election a lateness and an irregularity that I think it improper or undesirable to validate.

The poll for a new election for parent representatives shall close on 1 June 1995.

This notice shall take effect the day after its notification in the New Zealand Gazette.

Dated at Wellington this 20th day of April 1995.

JOHN MATHER, Acting Senior Manager, National Operations.

g02601

Hukarere School Board of Trustees Election

Pursuant to section 101 of the Education Act 1989, notice is given that the first election was held on the 29th day of March 1995, for the board of trustees of the following school:

Hukarere School, Napier.

The proprietors of the said school are entering into an integration agreement with the Minister of Education, pursuant to the Private Schools Conditional Integration Act 1975. The first meeting of the board of trustees will be held on the 28th day of April 1995.