2 APRIL NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE 1099

The dispute arises when one considers the meaning of littoral coastal waters.

As set out in the submission from the New Zealand Fishing Industry Board, the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines littoral as being “of or pertaining to the shore of the sea, a lake, etc., existing or occurring on or adjacent to the shore ... or designating of, or pertaining to the zone of the shore extending from the high-water mark to the low-water mark (intertidal) (occas.) or to the edge of the continental shelf”.

That same dictionary also defines “Coast” as being “the border of land near the sea, seashore and “Coastal”: as being “of or pertaining to a coast”.

When the definitions of these terms are considered together the New Zealand Fishing Industry Board submits that a Taiapure is restricted to areas of tidal waters in an estuary or the intertidal area on the shoreline.

Mr Sheilds on behalf of Mr McKay agrees and submits the Taiapure should be restricted to an area along the coastline within the low-water mark.

This being so, the tribunal if it accepts these definitions must recommend to the Minister that no further action be taken on the proposal because the proposal extends beyond the low-water mark and therefore on their interpretation of the legislation the proposal is unlawful.

Mr Chapman and Mr Broad who spoke in support of the proposal did not consider the word “littoral” provided an area which could be precisely defined. Mr Broad stated that the term “littoral” had “fuzzy” limits to it. It was a scientific term which was not to be taken as an exact point or area. Littoral coastal waters varied depending on what one was studying. Mr Chapman acknowledged that when setting the proposed boundaries of the Taiapure there was uncertainty with the seaward limit. He stated that because of the uncertainty it was important for clarity that the area be defined from “point to point”. That is from Cornish Head to Karitane Peninsula to Brinns Point to Warrington Beach and to Potato Point. This would provide an area with defined boundaries which was easier to police and for the boundaries to be publicised.

The tribunal has looked at a number of definitions for the term littoral over and above those already used. Two of these definitions the tribunal considers provides the answer to the debate as to the seaward limit of the littoral zone.

Websters New International Dictionary (The Australian Edition) defines littoral as:

• of or pertaining to the shore
• a coastal region
• a marine area characterised by forms of life found only near the shore. It is the region of the greatest abundance of marine life.

A Dictionary of Geography by W. G. Moore defines littoral as:

“the seashore, the strip of land along a sea coast or more strictly the land lying between the high and low tide levels—pertaining to the seashore.” also

“The littoral region of the ocean comprises the shallow waters adjacent to the sea coast; this region has the richest vegetation and so supports the most abundant animal life”.

The object and purpose of Part IX of the Fisheries Act 1996 is to set aside certain areas of New Zealand Fishing waters being littoral coastal waters.

In other words the Act is looking at the littoral region of the ocean, the waters and not the strip of land along the coast between the high- and low-water mark.

If one adopted the definition favoured by the objectors it would be too restrictive and would not apply to fishery waters or littoral coastal waters. It would apply to a strip of land.

The Act, in this tribunal’s view is referring to an area as defined in The Dictionary of Geography as the littoral region of the ocean, comprising shallow waters adjacent to the coast’s rich marine life. An area which in terms of the Act has customarily been of special significance as a source of food.

The size or limits of the littoral zone may differ in each proposed Taiapure depending on the areas fished and the type of fishing customarily carried out.

In this case the evidence as to the type of fish customarily caught clearly supports the finding that the proposed Taiapure area extend the seaward limit as set out in the proposal. This is an area rich in marine life, an area comprising shallow water adjacent to the coast, and an area which has customarily been used by local iwi or hapu as a source of food.

There is no precise line setting out this area and this uncertainty, whilst it may create problems in some areas was solved by setting a “point to point” seaward boundary in this case.

This method of defining the boundary in the proposal would provide an area which could be defined and in this tribunal’s view is acceptable for defining the limits of this Taiapure.

Furthermore, it is this tribunal’s view that the area proposed comes within the area envisaged by the Act as it is an area of New Zealand fisheries water which is close or adjacent to the coast and has customarily been of special significance as a source of food for local iwi or hapu.

Accordingly, this tribunal considers that the proposed area comes within the littoral fishery waters of New Zealand and therefore within the ambit of the Act.

(3) The matters the Minister must be satisfied with before recommending the establishment of a Taiapure in section 176 (2) (b).

(i) The size of the area of New Zealand fisheries waters it would be declared by the order to be a Taiapure local fishery. This point has been covered in relation to the definition of littoral and this tribunal considers that the size of the proposal is appropriate in this instance.

(ii) The impact of the order on the general welfare of the community in the vicinity of the area that would be declared by the order to be a Taiapure local fishery.

Mr McKay in his evidence gave views about the local householders in the affected area from Purakanui to Waikouaiti. The result of the poll which received an 86 percent return of the forms that there was a 94.7 percent expression of opposition to the Taiapure. The questionnaire used by Mr McKay in obtaining the views of the householders in this area came under attack from Mr Broad who considered the survey only surveyed one sector of the population and accordingly the result is biased. Mr David Ellison also considered that the result from the questionnaire were misleading because it came at the conclusion of a concentrated effort by Mr Stewart McKay’s group to undermine the proposal. People had a negative view of the proposal when the questionnaire was released and people were led to believing prior to consultation, that the proposal was a bad thing. As a result they answered the questionnaire in the negative.