6 JUNE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE 1465

Objector’s Argument

The objections that appeared before the tribunal fall broadly into two categories:

(a) Blackhead Beach residents

(b) The Fishing Industry

The Blackhead Beach residents

The Blackhead Beach objectors Messrs Hansen Condliffe and Walker and Ms Peterson explained that the initial information they had received was of a Fishery commencing at Blackhead Point then moving south along the coast.

They collectively did not want the Fishery extending north primarily because the Blackhead residents had supported the D.O.C proposed marine reserve.

They believe the area of Blackhead Beach between the proposed fishery and the proposed marine reserve will be exploited by the commercial Fishing Industry and if fisherman are excluded from the Taiapure area their recreational fishery will suffer greatly. These persons acknowledged that something should be done to arrest fishery resource depletion but because they had earlier supported the D.O.C reserve they maintained their objections to the Taiapure proposals.

Fishing Industry

In essence their objection is to the scope of the proposals. The various speakers are firmly of the opinion that the area sought by the applicants is without the definition of littoral/estuarine waters. Quoting from Hansard they argue that forty odd kilometres of coastline and up to seven kilometres depth is not “discrete” as envisaged by the legislators. These objectors also produced definitions of littoral in an attempt to have the tribunal at the very least recommend that the proposed area be reduced. The objectors argue (with some justification) that the legislation is messy apparently conceived and passed in haste and the applicants as well as the objectors are now paying the price.

The objectors were not against the idea of a Taiapure Fishery at Porangahau but felt obliged to object as mentioned above because of the wider implication of such a large area being accepted as a Taiapure Fishery.

The objectors did not concede that the fisheries resource had depleted to the extent suggested by the applicants.

The objectors were also of the opinion that if the Taiapure Fishery was to be established the suggestion by the applicants that there be a management committee comprising Non Maori as well as Maori, should be addressed and actioned by the Minister in due course.

Conclusions

In the Palliser Bay Taiapure enquiries the tribunal there said:

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

This observation is greatly relevant to the stance of the objectors in the immediate proposals. The Tribunal is of the view that if the legislation had clearly defined the scope and extent that these Taiapure Fisheries could encompass, the objections of the Fishing Industry in the instant inquiry would have been considerably less.

This Tribunal is not going to enter into the debate as to what is littoral and what is not; that may well be for the High Court on appeal or review; however as most of what the applicants seek can be accomplished even if the depth of the Fishery is lessened this appears to be the appropriate manner to deal with the questioning raised.

It is noted that the proposed Marine Reserve extends a mile from the coastline and this appears a realistic maximum depth for this Taiapure proposal.

Recommendation

1 That the proposed Taiapure Fishery be proceeded with subject to the seaward boundary being no more than one mile out from the low water mark at any point. The northern boundary to be as proposed ensuring that the Blackhead Point reef is within the Taiapure and south of the reef the boundary to follow the coastline. Notwithstanding the one mile restriction the boundary to be flexible enough to include any proven traditional fishing reefs that are within the original proposals.

2 That the Minister, if this Taiapure Fishery is created, when appointing a management committee take into account the wish of the applicants and some objectors that there be Non-Maori included.

Dated at Rotorua this 17th day of February 1995.

H. K. HINGSTON (Judge),”

(ii) Decision of the Minister of Fisheries

Pursuant to section 54G (9) (b) (ii) of the Fisheries Act 1983, the Minister of Fisheries, after taking into account the report and recommendations of a tribunal established pursuant to section 54G of the Fisheries Act 1983 (set out in (i) above), after having regard to the provisions of section 54H (3) of the Fisheries Act and after consultation with the Minister of Maori Affairs, hereby publishes his decisions made in regard to the report and recommendations of the tribunal considering the Porangahau Taiapure-Local Fishery proposal.

i. In regard to the tribunal’s first recommendation, I am satisfied that it is appropriate for me to recommend to the Governor-General that he declare a taiapure-local fishery at Porangahau with a boundary commencing at Cape Turnagain (40°29.4’S, 176°37.4’E) and proceeding along a straight line (bearing 025°T) to 40°26.7’S, 176°39.1’E and then continuing in a generally northerly direction at a distance of one nautical mile from the shoreline at MHWS to 40°14.2’S, 176°47.0’E and then in a straight line (bearing 025°T) to the mouth of an unnamed stream north of Blackhead Point at 40°11.7’S, 176°48.5’E.

ii. In regard to the tribunal’s second recommendation, I consider that this counsel is not applicable until the taiapure-local fishery has been declared by Order in Council, published in the Gazette. However, I have noted that the proponents are clear in their view that they want a range of interests represented on the management committee. This clearly parallels the view of the tribunal.

Dated at Wellington this 4th day of June 1996.

D. L. KIDD, Minister of Fisheries.