2240 NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE No. 94

proceeding in an easterly direction to the mean high water mark at Taranaki Point on the west coast of the North Island (at 37° 58.40'S 174° 46.75'E) thence along the mean high water mark of the coast to include all internal waters of Aotea Harbour and Kawhia Harbour to the point of commencement at Albatross Point 38° 06.75'S 174° 40.80'E.

Area 3: The area within a one nautical mile radius centred on Gannet Island 37° 58.40'S; 174° 34.00'E.

Later in discussing the area of taiapure I refer to each of the above areas as Areas 1, 2 or 3 as described above.

While the Proposal was filed by Rohe Takairi, it was widely discussed within the rural district of which Kawhia and Aotea form part and an investigatory committee drawn from representatives of the local community including Maori interests was established to assist in the promulgation and prosecution of the Proposal. I must say that, unlike some other taiapure Proposals which have been dealt with, this Proposal is widely supported by the local community, as may be gauged from my subsequent analysis of the submissions and objections received.

The Tribunal was told that it was intended that the investigatory committee, namely the Kawhia Aotea Fisheries Committee would become the Committee of Management for this taiapure.

The Proposal is expressed to be without prejudice to pending Tainui claims, no doubt referring to claims that have been lodged in respect of the Kawhia, Aotea and other west coast harbours. The Tainui Maori Trust Board's support for the Proposal was couched in similar terms. The Tribunal finds it hard to envisage how the granting of a taiapure under the Fisheries Act 1996 could prejudice a claim for ownership, possession or title to the harbours under some other form of legislation or grounds but in any event notes the expression ‘without prejudice’ in the Proposal and by the Trust Board so that it is recorded in this report.

Submissions and Objections

As I have said the taiapure Proposal was publicly notified on 20 June 1996. Seventy submissions or objections were received, 47 in support and 23 by way of objection.

Most of the support was from individuals residing in the Te Kuiti, Otorohanga, Kawhia, Te Awamutu and Hamilton areas but included support from the following bodies or organisations—

• Waikato Conservation Board
• Tainui Trust Board
• Waikato Salt Water Fishing Club
• Department of Conservation
• Kawhia Aotea Fisheries Committee
• Waitomo Scuba Club
• Te Waitere Boat Club
• Marokopa Community
• Te Runanga O Ngati Hikairo
• Moana Rahui O Aotea Limited
• Kawhia Boating and Angling Club Inc
• Kawhia Community Board
• Aruka and Te Koraha Marae
• Marokopa Kiritihere Recreational Fishermen
• Waikato Branch Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society
• Waikato District Council
• Rakaunui Marae

Objections were in the main from the fishing industry or those connected with it and I list the major objections—

• Simunovich Fisheries Limited
• Moana Pacific Fisheries Limited
• New Zealand Fishing Industry Board
• New Zealand Federation of Commercial Fisherman Inc.
• Sanford Limited
• Kawhia Fisheries Limited
• Hartstone (Raglan) Limited
• Hartstone Seafoods
• Central Eel Enhancement Co Limited

Two objections were received from Maori sources, from Eva Rickard and James Rickard. Eva Rickard maintained that the nature of the legislation still left the effective control of the taiapure with the Ministry of Fisheries in that the appointment of the committee of management and the implementation of regulations was ultimately directed through that source. This was implementation of law rangatiratanga and not proper recognition of tino rangatiratanga.

James Rickard referred to historical links between the Whaingaroa, Aotea and Kawhia Harbours and complained that application tended to sever these links. Mr Rickard also objected to recreational fishermen supporting the application so as to further their own interests. He claimed that there was no link between traditional fishing and recreational use and that one use should not be penalised to advantage others. In his view if there were to be prohibitions on fishing that should apply to all users.

Legal Issues

Mr Hollings appeared for the New Zealand Fishing Industry Board as well as the New Zealand Commercial Fishermen’s Association Inc. As part of his submissions he raised a number of legal issues all of which had been presented to the Manukau Taiapure Tribunal. These concerned mainly the question as to whether the area of taiapure constituted ‘estuarine or littoral coastal waters’ and as to whether they were areas of ‘special significance’. These terms are used in sections 174 and 175 of the Fisheries Act 1996 in defining the areas of New Zealand fisheries waters in respect of which a taiapure-local fishery may be established. Similar submissions were made by a number of other objectors.

There is nothing new in these submissions to change my view on the meaning of these terms as were expressed in my report on the Manukau Taiapure which was sent to the Minister of Fisheries on the 18th day of May 1998. In that report I concluded that ‘littoral coastal waters’ meant coastal waters of or pertaining to the shore of the sea or adjacent to the shore. The littoral zone would comprise mostly shallow waters where the effect of tidal phenomena and currents is apparent. I was loathe to express a distance from the shore that such zone might extend as this could well depend on such physical characteristics as reefs, headlands and islands.

I can see nothing in the present application which would lead me to rule that the proposed taiapure, namely, the two harbours, the area around Gannet Island and areas of coastal waters extending two to four nautical miles from the shore, extends outside the area of littoral coastal waters.

The other words referred to by Mr Hollings were ‘special significance’ as they appear in section 174. The area of a taiapure is thereby limited to areas of littoral coastal waters that have customarily been of special significance to any iwi or hapu’.

There is no doubt that fishing played a major part in the