12 AUGUST NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE

2241

lives of early Maori and the seas were an important factor in the provision of sustenance. The seas that formed part of the rohe (territory) of a hapu would normally be of significance to that hapu. The use of the word ‘special’ within the legislation imports that the area had something more to recommend it than being simply part of the traditional fishery of an iwi or hapu. It need to be an area of the fishery which had particular attributes or importance to make it special or precious to hapu or iwi. I address this question later in this report.

Consideration of the Objections

As I have already noted objections in the main came from the fishing industry or persons connected with it. There were, however, two objections from Maori sources, from Eve Tuaiwa Rickard and from James Rickard. Mrs Rickard’s objection was in essence against the nature of the legislation rather than against the Proposal itself. She felt that the legislation did not really acknowledge tino rangatiratanga and that the objectives could be given effect by imposing rahui on traditional fishing areas.

Mr Rickard’s objections to some extent echoed Mrs Rickard’s. Both these objections were outweighed by the considerable amount of local support for the Proposal.

Aside from legal issues which I have already commented on and the size of the taiapure which I will address later, members of the fishing industry commented particularly on the impact a taiapure might have on their businesses. This particularly applied to Hartstone Seafoods Limited which operated from Raglan. In evidence Mr Drew Hartstone said:

‘Our boats typically go out for the day and come back in the evening. So we never go very far from port. That area that the taiapure is discussing is key to us. It’s within that day’s fishing distance for our boats and in particular in the winter when there are strong south-westerly swells coming through, the area south’s sheltered by Albatross Point is very important for us in terms of safety. It’s dangerous enough to be at sea fishing without any sort of protection while you’re fishing but certainly when you go to pick up equipment, pick up nets from the sea floor, you want to be in a sheltered place and Albatross Point provides that. Albatross Point’s within the area of the taiapure and if all the, it seems the intent embodied in the taiapure application are imposed, that would prevent our fishing boats from picking up their equipment in that area. And I personally believe that would put some fishermen and their lives at risk.’

Mr Roydon Hartstone from the same firm estimated that 20 percent of the firm’s total catch was taken within the taiapure area. Both witnesses referred to the poor weather on the west coast which kept boats in port for considerable periods especially during the winter months. They emphasised that the area down to Albatross Point was particularly important to their business and the impact of a taiapure which could close the area to fishing could be quite devastating.

For Moana Pacific Fisheries Limited from Auckland Mr Mike Stevens spoke of the considerable investment that had been put into its business for the purpose of fishing some of the very areas that are now sought to be included in the taiapure. He contended that if this area was included in taiapure it would have a marked effect on their fishing and would also have an effect on other iwi in that fisherman would have to concentrate on other areas.

Adam Langley from Sandford Limited of Auckland also objected on two substantive grounds. The first was for legal reasons which echoed those to which I have already referred and the second was from the implications that a taiapure could have on his firm’s future operation on the west coast. Again Mr Langley spoke of the investment in and the development of the fishery. He said that his firm owned approximately ten inshore vessels that operated along the west coast, typically based in Onehunga but extending the main fishing operations from 90 Mile Beach all the way down to the Taranaki; that the distribution of fish is variable from year to year and consequently his firm needed the flexibility to harvest and catch the fish throughout the area along the west coast; that the areas proposed in the taiapure particularly north of Albatross Point were regarded as a substantially important trawling ground both for his and other trawler operators including Hartstones and Simunovich and any further closure of that area would restrict their operations. He added that the area north of Albatross Point is of special significance to the trawl fleet in that it provides a shelter during south-westerly conditions and that at those times there were no other areas on the west coast that provide a sheltered opportunity to carry out and conduct fishing, particularly for the smaller vessels of the fleet.

A slightly different objection was presented by Mike Holmes of Central Eel Enhancement Company. His firm fished for eels and he indicated that there were at least ten eel fishers operating in the proposed area harvesting a significant annual catch. He therefore supported the objections which had been put forward by other fishing industries interests. He pointed to a difficulty with the definition as to where the boundary of the taiapure is. Most of the eel fishing is from the tidal region into the upper waters of rivers. In his view the taiapure application was vague as to just where the boundary is. He acknowledged that once he was out into the main harbour very little commercial eel fishing took place.

The weight of evidence presented to the Tribunal by the commercial fishing operators that the area running along the coast within the proposed limits of this taiapure is very important to their businesses. In particular Albatross Point provides a shelter from south-westerly swells in bad weather and the area north of Albatross Point is an important area, especially in the case of smaller boats, in such conditions. The taiapure proposes that there would be further limitations on fishing to protect the fish within the taiapure and I have no doubt that any such prohibition would impact on the commercial fisherman. This is a matter that I must take into account in reaching a recommendation.

Consideration of Section 176 (2):

Section 176 (2) provides—‘The Minister shall not recommend the making of an order under section 175 of this Act unless the Minister is satisfied both—

(a) That the order will further the object set out in section 174 of this Act; and

(b) That the making of the order is appropriate having regard to—

(i) The size of the area of New Zealand fisheries waters that would be declared by the order to be a taiapure-local fishery; and

(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; and

(iii) The impact of the order on those persons having a special interest in the area that would be declared by the order to be a taiapure-local fishery; and

(iv) The impact of the order on fisheries management.’