NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE, No. 99 — 27 SEPTEMBER 2017

[48] The witnesses spoke of Te Aupōuri’s historical association with Waka Te Haua and Te Hiku o Te Ika in general. They addressed the origins of Te Aupōuri, its key whakapapa links, its land holdings and its tribal rohe (territory). They relied on the title determinations of the Native Land Court and Native Appellate Court in favour of Te Aupōuri in relation to the Parengarenga block, and the 1957 findings of Chief Judge Morison of the Māori Land Court in relation to the investigation of title to Te Oneroa a Tohe. The factual findings of Chief Judge Morison (which were not overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal) included that: the northern portion of Te Oneroa a Tohe was within the territory of Te Aupōuri and the southern portion was within the territory of Te Rarawa; members of the iwi had their kāinga and burial grounds scattered inland from the beach at intervals along the whole distance; the iwi occupied their respective portions of the land to the exclusion of other iwi; the beach and the rocks around Waka Te Haua were a major source of food supply for the iwi; Māori caught various fish species off the beach and from waka; from time to time various rāhui were imposed on the beach and sea itself; and the beach was generally used by members of the iwi.

[49] The witnesses spoke of the origins of the name “Waka Te Haua”. They identified by traditional name numerous fishing and other sites on Waka Te Haua itself, in the neighbouring parts of Te Oneroa a Tohe and in the surrounding fisheries waters. Many of these names are associated with Te Aupōuri. They identified numerous fish species that are caught on and around Waka Te Haua, including the maratea (red moki), ngākoikoi (rock cod) and kotore (sea anemone), which are of particular cultural significance to Te Aupōuri. Walter Kapa estimated that, of the persons who fish at Waka Te Haua, approximately 70 percent would be Te Aupōuri, 10 percent from other Te Hiku o Te Ika iwi and 20 percent from the general community.

[50] The witnesses discussed the Maunganui Bluff Reserve (which includes a camping ground and Waka Te Haua) and the role of the trustees of the reserve and Te Aupōuri in general as kaitiaki of Waka Te Haua and the surrounding fishery. Interestingly, not all people of Te Aupōuri are eligible to be appointed as trustees of the reserve as the custom is that trusteeship is reserved to those whānau from the western side of Te Kao, that is, the side closest to Waka Te Haua. The witnesses gave detailed accounts of how their role as kaitiaki manifests itself on a day to day and week to week basis, including: the exercise of tāpu ceremonies when there has been a drowning in the area; the imposition of rāhui when the fishery is under threat or there has been a drowning; asking visitors fishing on Waka Te Haua not to gut or clean fish there, and not to fish at night (which has traditionally been banned because of safety issues); advising visitors of where to fish and not to fish; directing visitors’ vehicles away from Waka Te Haua and towing their vehicles off Te Oneroa a Tohe when they have become bogged in the sand; gathering rubbish from Waka Te Haua and Te Oneroa a Tohe.

[51] The witnesses spoke of the process Te Aupōuri undertook in applying for the taiapure and why a taiapure was chosen instead of other fisheries management tools, such as mātaitai. The catalyst was the discovery of a large commercial fishing net off Waka Te Haua in 2004. This incident was raised with the Trust Board which then instigated the process of applying for the taiapure. Following the lodgement of the taiapure proposal and the commencement of the Tribunal’s inquiry, Te Aupōuri engaged with objectors, in particular Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto, to endeavour to resolve their differences. Te Aupōuri resolved issues with the fishing industry but not with their neighbouring iwi except to remove the reference to "exclusive" kaitiaki from the proposal.

[52] The iwi objectors did not challenge the witnesses’ evidence of Te Aupōuri’s longstanding association with Waka Te Haua, their role as kaitiaki of Waka Te Haua, or their intimate knowledge of traditional place names, fishing spots and fish life at and around Waka Te Haua. Instead, the iwi objectors concentrated on challenging Te Aupōuri’s evidence of the commercial netting incident, aspects of Te Aupōuri’s whakapapa evidence, and Te Aupōuri’s rationale for a taiapure. I address the commercial netting incident and the challenge to Te Aupōuri’s whakapapa evidence at this juncture.

[53] Joe Conrad and his nephew, Pereniki Conrad, gave evidence of the incident in 2004 when they discovered a commercial fishing net, approximately two kilometres in length, set about 400 metres off the shore at Te Arai (south of Waka Te Haua) and extending north west of Waka Te Haua. This was regarded by Te Aupōuri as a significant incursion by the fishing industry into this traditional fishery. Joe and Pereniki Conrad raised the issue with Matiu Wiki, the then chairman of the Trust Board. This eventually led to the lodgement of the taiapure proposal. Graham Neho, who represented Ngāti Kuri, Whiti Awarau, who represented Ngāi Takoto, and Karaka Karaka, who represented Ngāti Kahu, challenged these and other Te Aupōuri witnesses about the incident, although they did not present any evidence to contradict it. While the incident is not a major issue for the inquiry – and it was unclear to me why the iwi objectors focussed on it to the extent they did – I am well satisfied that the incident occurred as Joe and Pereniki Conrad said it did, and that it was the catalyst for Te Aupōuri lodging the taiapure proposal.

[54] Winiata Brown gave evidence of the Native Land Court and Native Appellate Court determinations of title of the Parengarenga block (approximately 49,000 acres) in the late 1890s. This block extended from Te Oneroa a Tohe (including Waka Te Haua) to the southern shores of Parengarenga harbour. The majority of the block (over 46,000 acres) was awarded to Te Aupōuri owners and came to be known as Parengarenga No. 5. The owners were the direct descendants of the children that Te Ikanui had with his two wives, Tihe and Kohine, who were the daughters of Te Amongaariki. They are said to be the founding ancestors of Te Aupōuri. Mr Brown’s purpose in referring to the Courts’ title determinations was to demonstrate that Te Aupōuri’s mana-whenua interests have