NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE, No. 99 — 27 SEPTEMBER 2017

coastal water requirement will typically further narrow the areas subject to taiapure-local fishing management. (emphasis added)

The Tribunal’s role

[41] The Tribunal’s role is governed by s 181 of the Act. The Tribunal conducts a public inquiry into all objections and submissions (s 181(1)). In conducting its inquiry the Tribunal may be assisted by an assessor (s 181(2)), who in this case was Mr Taumaunu. On completion of the inquiry the Tribunal is to make a report to the Minister in terms of section 181(8):

8. On completion of the inquiry, the tribunal shall, having regard to the provisions of section 176(2) of this Act—
   a. Make a report and recommendations to the Minister on the objections and submissions made to it, which report and recommendations may include recommended amendments to the proposal; or
   b. Recommend to the Minister that no action be taken as a result of the objections and submissions made to it.

[42] The Tribunal is to have regard to the provisions of section 176(2):

2. The Minister shall not recommend the making of an order under section 175 of this Act unless the Minister is satisfied both—
   a. That the order will further the object set out in section 174 of this Act; and
   b. That the making of the order is appropriate having regard to—
   i. The size of the area of New Zealand fisheries waters that would be declared by the order to be a taiapure-local fishery; and
   ii. The impact of the order on the general welfare of the community in the vicinity of the area that would be declared by the order to be a taiapure-local fishery; and
   iii. The impact of the order on those persons having a special interest in the area that would be declared by the order to be a taiapure-local fishery; and
   iv. The impact of the order on fisheries management.

B. THE POSITIONS OF THE IWI

[43] In this part of the report I summarise the submissions and evidence of the iwi in order to provide context to my subsequent discussion of the issues. I also summarise the meeting with iwi representatives. Although the iwi took opposing positions on the taiapure proposal, there was reasonable consistency in the evidence as it related to the issues that are relevant to this report.

Te Aupōuri

[44] Te Aupōuri lodged a detailed taiapure proposal which, as explained, was subsequently amended in response to feedback and changes in circumstances. The iwi says that the taiapure is in the interests of the local community. It wishes to exclude commercial netting and long-lining from the taiapure. It believes these fishing methods threaten the sustainability of the fishery and that their exclusion will improve customary and recreational fishing for the whole community.

[45] Te Aupōuri says that it has historically performed the role of kaitiaki of Waka Te Haua and the surrounding fishery, that the people of Te Kao (being Te Aupōuri) own Waka Te Haua, and that the people of Te Kao are the local Māori community or haukāinga for the purposes of the Act. It sees the role of kaitiaki as an inherited responsibility, carried on from generation to generation. It does not claim exclusive fishing rights and seeks only to ban commercial netting and long-lining.

[46] Te Aupōuri says that, while its neighbouring iwi, Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto, also fish at Waka Te Haua, it is not of special significance to them and they have not performed the role of kaitiaki. Rather, Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto have their own fisheries that are of special significance to them, and in respect of which they perform the role of kaitiaki.

[47] Te Aupōuri presented detailed evidence from Louise Mischewski, Joe Conrad, Pereniki Conrad, Tutangiora Nathan, Tireiniamu Kapa, Rosie Conrad, Winiata Brown, Walter Kapa, Henry Ihaka, Raymond Subritzky, Anaru Rieper and Hugh Karena (who also acted as Te Aupōuri’s representative). As most of the evidence was not challenged, I need not give an account of what each witness said but provide an overall summary.

12