18 NOVEMBER 2005 NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE, No. 194 4863

Issue 3

How might rangatiratanga, and the fisheries right secured in Article II of the Treaty of Waitangi, be better provided for in terms of this application?

Perhaps too little attention has previously been given to the historical context of the provisions in the general fisheries legislation relating to taiāpure. The legislation was enacted as part of the Crown’s settlement of Māori Treaty claims to the commercial fishery. The provisions are part of a range of measures designed to make better provision for the Māori Treaty interest in the non-commercial fishery.

Section 174 specifically talks about the creation of taiāpure being a way of recognising rangatiratanga, and recognising too the right to fisheries secured to Māori under Article II of the Treaty. In the English version, the guarantee was to “the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties…”. The Māori version guaranteed te tino rangatiratanga over these things.

In relation to Akaroa Harbour, making better provision for the recognition of rangatiratanga and the Treaty fisheries guarantee through the creation of a taiāpure militates against a piecemeal approach. We think it would run counter to the exercise of mana by the rūnaka in relation to the taiāpure and the harbour if we were to limit the taiāpure to specific sites, or limited zones, in the harbour. There is a fisheries management argument to be made about this, and we refer to that later. Provided the other tests in section 174 are met – and in addressing issues 1 and 2, we have concluded that they are – we consider that recognising rangatiratanga here means the creation of a taiāpure that gives effect to the applicants’ traditional dominion over the whole of the harbour area. In saying that, we acknowledge that the amended application excepts those areas where Sea-Right and Akaroa Salmon have marine farming licences. These are areas that the applicants have chosen to exclude, arguably an exercise of rangatiratanga in itself. Also excepted is the relatively small area that we address in the context of the marine reserve proposal. If our recommendation is accepted, these areas would not be within the taiāpure. But the taiāpure management committee will be managing the balance of the harbour, which is a much larger area. The special role of tangata whenua in the life of the whole harbour would, we feel, be thereby secured.

Issue 4

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

There were three submitters who pointed us to the fact that the rūnaka’s taiāpure application was originally for a smaller area entirely within Akaroa Harbour.³⁷ Obviously, the thinking of the rūnaka changed over time, so that the application ultimately related to the whole of Akaroa Harbour, plus an area just outside the heads so that the taiāpure would be contiguous with the Pōhatu Marine Reserve.

The area applied for is not out of keeping with other taiāpure that have been established. Unfortunately, the data we were able to access about the comparative dimensions of taiāpure is not helpful for the purposes of comparing dimensions, as their areas are given only as map co-ordinates rather than in hectares. However, at least one taiāpure is as large as that applied for at Akaroa Harbour. It is the Kawhia Aotea taiāpure, which includes both the Aotea and Kawhia Harbours on the North Island west coast. It is possible that the Maketu and Porangahau taiāpure are also as large. The Maketu taiāpure runs from the shoreline to 1-3 kilometres offshore, and for 32 kilometres along the coast. The Porangahau taiāpure runs for 42 kilometres along the coast enclosing an area one nautical mile from the shoreline.

³⁷ See the written submissions of Sea-Right Investments Ltd, paragraphs 15-17; Akaroa Salmon (NZ) Ltd, paragraph 2; and Akaroa Harbour Marine Protection Society, page 4.