18 NOVEMBER 2005

NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE, No. 194

declare Dan Rogers a marine reserve, we think we have relieved the management
committee of an inevitable point of conflict early on in its life.

Issue 6

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

As already stated, section 176 requires us to have regard to the impact of a taiāpure order on
“those persons having a special interest in the area that would be declared by the order to be a
taiāpure-local fishery” (section 176(2)(b)(iii)). We must have regard also to “the impact of
the order on fisheries management” (section 176(2)(b)(iv)).

The commercial fishing interests in Akaroa Harbour are now more or less confined to marine
farming. Although once a sizeable commercial fishing port, the fishery in the harbour can no
longer support a commercial fishery.

We heard, however, from two marine farmers, Roger Beattie of Sea-Right Investments, and
Tom Bates of Akaroa Salmon (NZ) Limited. Both men have made a considerable investment
in marine farming. Roger Beattie’s company grows pāua and mussels, and extracts seaweed
from the harbour. Tom Bates’s business is in producing salmon.

As already explained, Roger Beattie’s concerns about the establishment of the taiāpure led to
his appealing to the High Court in respect of our earlier report and recommendations. The
re-hearing commenced on the footing that Sea-Right’s counsel would participate in an
oppositional capacity. Happily, however, the rūnaka were able to reach agreements with both
Sea-Right and Akaroa Salmon which effectively dealt with their concerns about the taiāpure.

Taiāpure are a new and largely untried fisheries management tool, and it is perhaps inevitable
that those holding valuable existing use rights will be apprehensive about their establishment.
It is to the credit of Mr Beattie, Mr Bates and the rūnaka that they were able to sit down and
find a way of managing their competing interests and aspirations. Our impression was that
the accommodation was reached established a platform for a positive ongoing relationship
between the rūnaka on the one hand, and the marine farming interests represented by Mr
Beattie and Mr Bates on the other. It is to be hoped that this co-operative approach would
continue into the life of the management committee.

The result of the agreements reached between the parties is that any effects on existing
commercial interests in the harbour have been disposed of as between the parties, and we
may therefore infer that there are no interests that will be adversely affected by the creation of
the taiāpure as sought.

Issue 7

Can the mechanisms in the Fisheries Act 1996 for management and control of the taiāpure be expected to deliver the anticipated environmental and other benefits?

When we held our first hearing over five days at Akaroa from 1-5 December 2003, we found
the submissions to be of a high standard. The level of community support for, and
engagement in, the taiāpure proposal particularly impressed us. A brief outline of
submissions presented orally at the first hearing is attached to this report as Appendix D.⁴⁹

From the submitters who spoke to us, we learned that Akaroa Harbour has within living
memory undergone considerable degradation in terms of the decline of fish and shellfish
stocks, and water quality parameters. There was general agreement that different
management practices are required for the area. It was evident that the ability for local people
to control their marine environment is an idea with tremendous appeal. It seemed to us that

⁴⁹ We have summarised the key scientific evidence presented at the re-hearing in the body of this report, and
therefore do not repeat it in an appendix.