4854 NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE, No. 194 18 NOVEMBER 2005

of understanding under which the applicant rūnaka agreed to amend their application to
exclude from it the marine farming areas for which Sea-Right holds licences.

Subsequently, the rūnaka updated their agreement with a company called Akaroa Salmon Ltd
(‘Akaroa Salmon’), which also carries on the business of marine farming in Akaroa Harbour.
Akaroa Salmon originally objected to the application by the rūnaka but withdrew its
objection when a similar agreement was reached. The taiāpure application is now also
amended by the exclusion from the area applied for as a taiāpure of the areas for which
Akaroa Salmon holds marine farming permits.

A map of the area now the subject of the application, depicting the Sea-Right and Akaroa
Salmon areas that are excluded, is attached to this report as Appendix A.

The matters to be addressed in this report

As a result of the foregoing, it now remains for this tribunal to report anew to the Minister on
the merits of the amended application, in the light of His Honour Justice Ronald Young’s
judgment, and the further evidence received.

When we reported to the Minister on 16 January 2004, we said that the proposal raised six
issues upon which we would report. The issues were these:

(1) Should the taiāpure include the Dan Rogers area, which is the subject of a marine
reserve proposal?

(2) What is the appropriate size for a taiāpure? Is the area applied for too large?

(3) Can the area applied for properly be regarded as littoral or estuarine, as required by
sections 174 and 175 of the Fisheries Act 1996.

(4) Would the establishment of the taiāpure unduly affect existing commercial interests in
Akaroa Harbour?

(5) Can the mechanisms in the Act for management and control of the taiāpure be
expected to deliver the anticipated environmental and other benefits?

(6) In practice, how will the Management Committee work? Can it be sufficiently
inclusive of community interests, at the same time as delivering on the kaupapa Māori
agenda of the applicants?

We consider that these remain issues upon which we must report, but there are two further
issues.

His Honour’s judgment requires us to report more comprehensively on the issue of the
special significance of Akaroa Harbour, and sites within it, to the constituent rūnaka as a
source of food, and for spiritual and cultural reasons. We now therefore add to the list of
issues set out above the following question: Was the area comprised in the application
customarily of significance to the hapū of Ōnuku, Wairewa and Koukourārata as a source of
food, or for spiritual or cultural reasons?

Upon further consideration of section 174, we think there is a further element that has not
been fully addressed. Section 174 says that the object of sections 175 to 185 of the Fisheries
Act 1996, in relation to areas of New Zealand fisheries waters that are estuarine or littoral
coastal waters, is to make better provision for the recognition of rangatiratanga and of the
right secured in relation to fisheries by Article II of the Treaty of Waitangi. We will therefore
also address this question: How may rangatiratanga, and the fisheries right secured in Article
II, be better provided for in terms of this application?

In light of what has happened since our previous report, some of our views have changed, and
some have remained the same. But because only some matters were reheard, and some have