12 AUGUST
NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE
2245

Recreational Consultant employed by the Kawhia Aotea Fisheries Committee to assist in the promotion of the application, told the Tribunal:

“‘The original application, Sir was, for the Taiapure, was based on the Rohe Potae.

There are four separate sections of marine habitat included in the application. The two harbours, the area in front of the harbours down to Albatross Point) and the two nautical mile section from Albatross Point to Tirua Point. There is no need for me to justify the inclusion of the harbours in the application. They are largely bereft of fish. That they are largely bereft of fish is a fact that is without dispute. Suffice to say that both harbours are different and both have distinct management problems.

The two nautical mile zone south to Tirua Point is included because, even in spite of the one nautical mile Trawler and Danish Seining restriction, there are still very few fish caught by traditional and recreational fishers on this section of coast compared with what was once the case. The one nautical mile zone has yet to prove its worth under the present management regime.

The area west of the mouth of the two harbours is included because the local people recognise that at periods of low tide, both harbours empty out to a large degree.

That fish leave the harbour, particularly during periods of warm weather, is a recognised fact. Once out of the harbour they are of course vulnerable to being taken by any fishers who are working the area. In the knowledge of the local committee and their supporters, there is a problem of local depletion. This is exacerbated by the operation of commercial boats in the area outside the harbour bubbles. Once again the effectiveness of the one mile nautical mile zone and harbour bubbles has yet to be noticed by the customary and recreational users under the present management. Iwi would like to have their say in the management of these areas in conjunction with other community groups.’’

The thrust of the above submission is to give reasons for the extension of the area of taiapure so as to allow management which will enhance and protect the fish stocks in the harbours. While this would appear admirable any extension of the area of a taiapure for such purpose does not appear to be recognised under the Act. The criteria is simply areas of special significance to hapu or iwi and as I have said nothing has been demonstrated to the Tribunal which would bring the waters of Area 1 within that category. I acknowledge that there is reference to one or two important fishing grounds within this area such as Piritoto Reef and Marokapa Estuary but I do not see these small areas as being sufficient to justify some 40 kilometres of coastline as taiapure.

As I have already noted, the provisions of the Fisheries Act 1996 do not enable the area of a taiapure to be extended for the purposes of better managing or protecting the taiapure. The impact of fishing outside the harbours is a matter which the Management Committee will have to address if a taiapure is granted. I note that the committee of management has power under section 185 of the Act to recommend the making of regulations for the conservation and management of the fish, aquatic life, or seaweed in a taiapure-local fishery. It may well be that such regulations need not be confined just to the area of the taiapure but might extend to perimeter areas as a protection measure and this is a matter that the committee could well look at.

Recommendation

After due consideration of the Proposal and the submissions in support and objections against and measuring these against the relative provisions of the Fisheries Act I find:

(i) that the area of taiapure is not small but covers a considerable area of coastline forming part of the snapper 8 fishery;

(ii) that the coastal area of the taiapure as opposed to the harbours covers an important section of the snapper 8 fishery for commercial fishing interests and the establishment of a taiapure could have an adverse impact on their operations;

(iii) that while most of the coastal area of the taiapure formed part of the customary fishery of the hapu supporting the application and was therefore of significance it was not established that Area 1 was an area of special significance within the meaning of section 174 of the Fisheries Act 1996;

(iv) that a taiapure should be established over the two harbours and part of the coastal area of Area 2.

As far as the coastal area of Area 2 is concerned, that is the area between Taranaki Point and Albatross Point, the question is how to define the area to be included in the taiapure. In this regard I have to make some judgement and I take into account that the areas likely to have been of most importance to hapu or iwi would have been close to shore or immediately outside the harbours. I also must take into account the impact that any extension of the existing fishing restrictions might have on the commercial sector.

It is my view that the part of Area 2 to be included in the taiapure can be best defined by adopting the existing area which contains restrictions applying principally to commercial fishing, that is, the one nautical mile coastal area and the two nautical miles harbour bubbles. This also avoids the need to define an area that is not already subject of existing definition.

It is therefore recommended that the area of the taiapure-local fishery be limited to the area of the Kawhia and Aotea Harbours together with a coastal strip extending seawards one nautical mile from mean high water springs from Taranaki Point generally southerly along the coast until Albatross Point and also including the two nautical mile harbour bubbles around the Kawhia and Aotea Harbours.

The above definition is not intended as a precise geographical definition and it is left to the Ministry’s advisers to define the area with precision if this recommendation is accepted. It is pointed out that the landward boundaries of the harbours have not been defined and need to be defined so that it is known where the harbours cease and estuarine streams begin.

Dated at Hamilton this 28th day of September 1998.

G. D. CARTER, Judge.

(b) Decision of the Minister

Pursuant to section 181 (9) (b) (ii) of the Fisheries Act 1996, the Associate Minister for Food, Fibre, Biosecurity and Border Control, after having taken into account the report and recommendations of the tribunal and having regard to the provisions of section 176 (2) of the Fisheries Act 1996 and after consultation with the Minister of Maori Affairs, hereby publishes his decision on the report and recommendations of the Tribunal concerning the Kawhia Aotea taiapure Proposal.

(i) In regard to the recommendations in the Tribunal report I accept that a taiapure—local fishery should be established in the area of Kawhia and Aotea Harbours,