2320 NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE No. 90

individual fishers and others involved in the industry will
make their own submissions”.

Consequent upon the agreement that has been reached, there
is no support for this submission from individual fishers or
the industry. The agreement protects existing users and
counters the Council’s submissions as to adverse effect on
existing users and lack of agreement with the major
right-holders of the fishing resources. It leaves at large only
the submission by the Council that taiapure-local fishing
areas should be small special purpose and not apply to larger
off-shore areas as is submitted in the case in this application.

The question as to the size of a taiapure and the meaning of
estuarine or littoral coastal waters has been argued before
me in some detail in two previous applications; the
Manukau Taiapure and the Kawhia-Aotea Taiapure. It is my
understanding that the former report has yet to be released
by the Minister but that the latter report was gazetted in the
New Zealand Gazette, 12 August 1999, No. 94 at page 2239.

In the light of my findings in those reports, I do not see the
present taiapure as being outside the contemplation of the
Act. The area is clearly discernible by reference to
landmarks. It is a relatively small area of coastal waters
running along the coast between those landmarks. In my
view those areas, which were once rich in fish life, are of a
special significance to Ngāti Tama and constitute a taiapurelocal fishery under the intent of the Act.

In the Manukau Taiapure Report, I summarised my findings
as to the meaning of littoral coastal waters as follows:

“I have already determined that coastal waters applies to
the waters along the entire coastline of New Zealand
and the word ‘littoral’ qualifies their breadth or extent.
While littoral can mean between high and low
watermark, it would make a nonsense of the legislation
to apply this meaning. In this regard I prefer the
meaning which relates to of or pertaining to the shore of
the sea or adjacent to the shore. In this regard the
littoral zone would comprise mostly shallow waters
where the effect of tidal phenomena and currents is
apparent. It would generally include those areas which
have been significantly rich in sea life.

I would be loathe to prescribe a finite limit on how far a
littoral zone or region might extend. To be constituted a
taiapure the fishery must yet to be of special significance.
Reefs, islands and other landmarks might well play a
part in interpreting whether a particular area fell within
the littoral coastal area.”

There is nothing in the submissions of the New Zealand
Seafood Industry Council which would lead me to reverse
those findings. I do not see the present taiapure as being
outside the contemplation of the Act. It is a relatively
small area of coastal waters encompassing two bays. The
area is easily discernible by reference to landmarks and
encompasses littoral waters between those landmarks. The
area once rich in fish life is of special significance to Ngāti
Tama and constitutes a taiapure-local fishery within the
meaning and intent of the Act.

Section 176 (2) sets out the matters upon which the Minister
must be satisfied before recommending an order discharging
a taiapure-local fishery as follows:

(2) 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.

I deal briefly with each of these pre-requisites in turn.

The object expressed in section 174 is better provision for
the recognition of rangatiratanga and of the right secured in
relation to fisheries by Article II of the Treaty of Waitangi.
The application by Ngāti Tama seeks by means of a taiapure
to administer and control their fisheries and is a major
element of rangatiratanga. The fact that Ngāti Tama seek to
exercise that management and control by virtue of a
consultative process with all interested parties, does not
detract from their rangatiratanga but enhances it.

I have already commented on the size of the taiapure. It is a
relatively small area, is well defined and in my view is well
within the nature and intent of a taiapure under the Act.

There has been no objection from the community in the
vicinity of the taiapure and therefore no evidence of or any
suggestion of adverse impact on the general welfare of that
community. The fact that the taiapure is well supported
suggests that the local community sees benefits in its
creation.

Those persons having a special interest in the area are the
commercial fishing interests which initially objected to the
taiapure. The recent agreement as between the applicants
and those interests to which I will refer a little later,
indicates that those interests are now not unduly concerned
over the impact of the taiapure.

The taiapure proposes a separate regime for the management
of much of its area. This will no doubt involve the
promulgation of regulations limiting types of fishing and
catch numbers. Because the area is relatively small and
localised, I cannot see that this poses any real impact on
fisheries management.

At the hearing, Doctor Mitchell, Chairman of Ngāti Tama,
made comment that the application posed some difficulty in
that the establishment of a taiapure to secure Ngāti Tama’s
customary rights could intrude on its commercial interest in
the area. As a consequence, they were conscious that they
had to balance those customary rights with the interests of
others who may be affected by the taiapure.

Doctor Mitchell went on to comment that members of the
various interest groups worked together on the establishment
committee and that he expected those members to continue
to work together on the Taiapure Management Committee.

I have already commented on the widespread consultation
and involvement of representatives of the various interest
groups on the establishment committee. I perceive that much
of the support for the proposal has come from that
involvement and the expectation that those various groups
will be involved on the Taiapure Management Committee.

When a taiapure is established, the committee of
management is appointed by the Minister under section 184.
Section 184 (3) provides that it “shall be appointed on the
nomination of persons who appear to the Minister to be
representative of the local Maori community”.

The appointment of a committee of management is a
separate matter from the establishment of a taiapure.
Although consultation carried with it an indication that there
would be broad representation on the committee, there is no
guarantee that this will be put into effect. In so saying, I cast