18 NOVEMBER 2005 NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE, No. 194 4865

What might broadly be called the conservationist lobby in Banks Peninsula, and also the Department of Conservation, support the exclusion of Dan Rogers from the taiāpure so that it can be designated as a marine reserve. Their support for the taiāpure was expressed as being conditional upon the exclusion of Dan Rogers from the taiāpure area.⁠42 These were the groups and representatives expressing this point of view:

• Eugenie Sage and Chris Denny for the Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society; and

• Brian Reid, Kathleen Reid, Steve Carswell, Jan Cook (also representing Friends of Banks Peninsula Inc), Richard Boleyn, Jeff Hamilton and Suky Thompson for the Akaroa Harbour Marine Protection Society.

Mike Cuddihy of the Department of Conservation also supported the establishment of the marine reserve, but his support did not expressly require exclusion of this area from the taiāpure. Rather, he favoured a taiāpure and a marine reserve operating alongside each other.⁠43 In effect, we think this amounts to much the same thing.

We summarise the arguments in favour of the establishment of a marine reserve at Dan Rogers as follows:

(a) The marine reserve proposal has considerable community support

It was apparent from the material presented to us that there was considerable community support for the Dan Rogers marine reserve proposal in 1996.⁠44 There were 2387 submissions in support of the proposal and 709 objections. A further 187 objections to the application were received outside the statutory closing date for objections.⁠45

The rūnaka’s taiāpure proposal involves the appointment of a management committee that will have a broad community base, and which will require community goodwill if it is to work. Accordingly, we felt that the level of support for the marine reserve as a necessary adjunct to the taiāpure was a factor that we needed to take into account in order to ensure the necessary broad community support for the concept, and for the work of the management committee.

We were also mindful of the requirement in section 176 of the Act for us to take into account in making a recommendation to the Minister the impact of a taiāpure order on the general welfare of the community in the vicinity (section 176(2)(b)(ii)), and the impact of the order on persons having a special interest in the area that would be declared a taiāpure (section 176(2)(b)(iii)). We were satisfied that for a good number of those living around Akaroa Harbour, environmental concerns rate highly, and this has been expressed in support for the marine reserve proposal, and in the conditional support for the taiāpure proposal. We felt that this interest group is a significant and committed voice in the Akaroa Harbour community. Moreover, it seemed to us that

⁠42 Akaroa Harbour Marine Protection Society Submission, 2 August 2002 and Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, Submission of Eugenie Sage, paragraph 8.

⁠43 Department of Conservation, Submission of Mike Cuddihy, 6 August 2002, paragraph 4.

⁠44 On 6 January 1996, the Akaroa Harbour Marine Protection Society made a formal application to the Director-General of Conservation for the establishment of a marine reserve at Dan Rogers. Having been satisfied that the application fulfilled the procedural requirements of the Marine Reserves Act 1971, the Director-General of Conservation forwarded the application, objections and answers to the Minister of Conservation for his consideration. Since that time, the Dan Rogers marine reserve application has not progressed. On 18 December 1998, the Minister of Conservation reached an agreement with both the marine reserve and taiāpure applicants that stated that the marine reserve application would not be progressed further by the Minister of Conservation until the taiāpure application had been resolved.

⁠45 Akaroa Harbour Marine Protection Society document Akaroa Marine Reserve: Answer to Objections, page 1 and submission of the Director-General of Conservation on the proposed Akaroa Taiāpure-Local Fishery, 6 August 2002, paragraph 1.5.