18 NOVEMBER 2005

NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE, No. 194

of consumption. Thus, in order that use and preservation are kept in balance in Akaroa
Harbour, he favoured a marine reserve and a taiāpure working in conjunction.

Against these arguments, we heard from the rūnaka spokespeople, and in particular Reverend
Maurice Gray, that the exclusion of the Dan Rogers area from the taiāpure would be a blow
to the mana of the hapū who have been tangata whenua of the harbour for centuries. Māori
have developed a conservation ethic over this extended period which, when applied to
Akaroa Harbour, will ensure its long-term sustainability as an ecosystem and as a fishery.
The applicant hapū will work through the management committee to ensure that tikanga
Māori are adhered to by users of the harbour, effecting its rehabilitation, and restoring its
mauri. Marine reserves were rejected as an “absolutist” approach to conserving the fishery:
Ngāi Tahu stressed the flexibility and creativity inherent in allowing the taiāpure
management committee to manage the harbour holistically.

We were also pointed to the Ngāi Tahu tribal policy on marine reserves. A marine reserve
application will not receive the tribe’s support if it:

•
relates to an area of importance for customary fishing;

•
is an area considered wāhi tapu; or

•
would diminish the development of any area management tools such as mātaitai,
taiāpure and rāhui.

In questioning, iwi spokesperson Nigel Scott confirmed that this policy makes it unlikely that
Ngāi Tahu would support any marine reserve application in an area that was traditionally
occupied by Ngāi Tahu. The only marine reserves to have been endorsed by Ngāi Tahu thus
far are located in the Auckland Islands, Fiordland, Paterson Inlet and at nearby Pōhatu. Apart
from the marine reserve at Pōhatu, none of these marine reserves are places of significant
Ngāi Tahu habitation today. We understood that Ngāi Tahu’s consent to the establishment of
the marine reserve at Pōhatu at the time related to an understanding with the then Minister
of Conservation that a taiāpure would be established in Akaroa Harbour in exchange for this
support.47

Conclusion

Given the heartfelt and principled views on both sides, we found this a difficult issue to
resolve.

Nevertheless, we could not avoid making a choice between supporting on the one hand the
proposed taiāpure as a stand-alone management and conservation tool for the whole harbour
(excluding only the Akaroa Salmon and Sea-Right areas), and supporting on the other hand
the taiāpure operating together with a marine reserve at Dan Rogers.

On balance, we favoured the second of these two options. We felt that the establishment of a
marine reserve at Dan Rogers would deliver benefits to all concerned. For this reason, we
favour the exclusion of this area from the taiāpure.

We were influenced by the following factors:

(a) The Dan Rogers area over which a marine reserve designation is sought comprises
only 8% of the proposed taiāpure. We felt that the mana and rangatiratanga of the
applicant rūnaka and its constituent hapū could be amply and properly expressed in
the designation of a taiāpure over the balance area of the application, which is after all
larger by far;

47 Taiāpure Application for Akaroa Harbour on behalf of Ōnuku, Wairewa and Koukourārata Rūnaka August
2002, paragraph 4.1.

4867