NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE

No. 94

The above provisions itemise the matters which the Tribunal is bound to take into account in making a recommendation to the Minister. Section 174 provides as the object of a taiapure better provision for the recognition of rangatiratanga and of the right secured in relation to fisheries by Article II of the Treaty of Waitangi. Insofar as the Proposal is supported by local hapu, covers areas of their traditional fisheries waters and provides a means of control to the hapu, although not full rights of tino rangatiratanga, the Tribunal accepts that an order would further the object set out in section 174 of the Act.

Turning to the matters that are specified in section 176 (2) (b) the first of these is the size of the area of New Zealand fisheries waters to be included in the taiapure. Mr Greenwood, who assisted the applicant in the presentation of his case to this Tribunal, submitted that when measured against the total area of New Zealand fisheries waters the area of the taiapure was small. He calculated that the area of taiapure measured against the waters in New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone of 4,116,670 km² on a percentage basis was 0.0042 percent, while measured against the snapper 8 area of 381,070 km² within which the taiapure was situated the percentage was only .045 percent.

Mr Royden Hartstone countered that such type of comparison was unreasonable in that different species were caught in different areas and that, by way of example, snapper were normally caught within the 12 mile limit. It was therefore unfair to compare the area of the taiapure with the total area of New Zealand Fisheries waters extending to the 200 mile limit. He contended that the area of the taiapure extending along the coastline from two to four nautical miles out to sea occupied an important part of the snapper fishery and that the area of the taiapure should be assessed in this light. In answer to a question from the Tribunal, after first consulting with his office, he estimated that 20 percent of his firm’s snapper catch came from the taiapure area. In reply Mr Greenwood countered that if the snapper 8 area was measured only to the 12 mile limit the percentage area of the taiapure would still be only 1.58 percent.

I do not see that comparing the size of a taiapure against the total area of New Zealand fisheries waters or even against the area of a specific fishing zone such as snapper 8 provides a reasonable measure of size. In these terms it could be argued that a substantial area of taiapure, even the whole of an iwi’s traditional fishery, could still be regarded as small. I believe that the size of a taiapure should be measured by its physical size, the impact it may have on other users and use to which it is put by the public at large, interest groups and the fishing industry.

The present Proposal covers two sizeable harbours, and extends, in a straight line by my measurement approximately 60 kilometres along the west coast from Taranaki Point to Tirua Point. Measured against the New Zealand coastline and the coastal rohe of Ngati Hikawera and associated tribes I regard the area of the taiapure as large. It is a substantial area of the traditional fisheries waters used by those tribes. While the adjoining lands are not subject of heavy urban population the evidence before the Tribunal showed that there is considerable public use of the seas for recreational and fishing use and that use of the area is an important part of the commercial fishery.

The impact of an order on the general welfare of the community in the vicinity of the area of taiapure is another factor to be assessed. There has been ample evidence that an order of taiapure would be widely accepted or even welcomed by the local community as a means towards improving fisheries in the area of the taiapure. Such is the dissatisfaction with the general state of the local fishery that any initiative to improve the fishery would be acceptable. There is no apprehension over the establishment of the taiapure and no evidence that the general welfare of the community would be adversely affected.

The third provision is the impact upon persons having a special interest in the area. Those most likely to be affected will be the commercial fishermen and I have already considered their objections and noted that the taiapure will impact on them.

The final factor is the impact of the order on fisheries management. The area proposed is only a small area out of the area of New Zealand fisheries waters and this has been accepted both by the applicant and the Ministry of Fisheries. There may be some difficulty in trying to reconcile the different objectives that a taiapure has and the different forms of control and regulation that may be required over the area of taiapure as opposed to adjacent areas of New Zealand fisheries waters. Mr Drey for the Ministry of Fisheries in his report to the Minister on the Proposal saw difficulties in policing the areas of taiapure outside the harbours and additional costs arising therefrom. With all due respect to Mr Drey’s opinion, if the Ministry is already policing the existing one nautical mile limit and the harbour bubbles then I fail to see how a slight adjustment to these limits over a reasonably well defined area of coastline would bring much of an increase in the cost of policing the taiapure boundaries. On the establishment of any taiapure some impact on fisheries management is to be expected but in this case the Tribunal does not see that the impact would be great.

Scarcity of Fish

During the course of the hearing and in the Proposal, submissions and objections there has been much emphasis on the scarcity of fish stocks within the Kawhia and Aotea Harbours and the outer areas of the Taiapure. The Tribunal has had before it an abundance of evidence as to the rapid decline in fish stocks over the last 30 to 40 years. Surveys of fishing catches conducted in the west coast harbours since 1990 show that Kawhia Harbour has the lowest catch rate of all the harbours.

Visual observation reveals that both Kawhia and Aotea Harbours are relatively shallow and most of the water therein empties into the open sea at low tide and it is said that the fish also go out of the harbour. The applicants claim that the concentration of commercial fishing outside the harbours means that these fish and other fish which might enter the harbours are caught and thus affect the fishing in the harbours. Members of the fishing industry dispute these claims pointing to land clearing, including the application of fertiliser and pesticides, as polluting the harbours and being a cause of the paucity of fish in the harbours. They also claim that fish stocks are generally increasing.

While the question of availability of fish is not a prime factor in an application for taiapure, the principal object being to provide rangatiratanga over an area of fishery which has special significance to hapu or iwi, insofar as the scarcity of fish has been the catalyst which has brought about the filing of the Proposal and its general acceptance by the local community I make some brief comment on this issue.

There has been presented to the Tribunal reports on the availability of fish stocks under the present system operated by the Ministry of Fisheries and I do not propose to review those reports or discuss them in detail. Evidence presented to the Tribunal suggests that fish stocks in the west coast