NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE, No. 99 — 27 SEPTEMBER 2017

but that otherwise he saw no problem with it as a model.

[65] Mr Petera raised a number of concerns with the taiapure process. He suggested that Ngāti Kuri would be excluded from Waka Te Haua, that Te Aupōuri was receiving a payment from the fishing industry and that Te Aupōuri would not be excluding commercial fishers. After some questioning, Mr Petera conceded that many of these concerns were based on supposition and not fact and agreed that: Ngāti Kuri would not be excluded from Waka Te Haua; that there was no evidence of Te Aupōuri receiving payment from the fishing industry; and that Te Aupōuri does intend excluding commercial fishers with the exception of those collecting mussel spat.

[66] In response to my questions regarding Te Aupōuri’s role as kaitiaki of Waka Te Haua, Mr Petera said that both he and his father were also kaitiaki. In explanation of his role, he said that while he did not fish Waka Te Haua he would sometimes sit on Waka Te Haua or pause there while travelling along Te Oneroa a Tohe. I note that this evidence had not been put to the Te Aupōuri witnesses who had spoken in detail about their kaitiaki roles.

Ngāi Takoto

[67] Rangitāne Marsden filed a submission on behalf of Ngāi Takoto on 4 November 2008. The submission analysed and responded to Te Aupōuri’s proposal in detail. Ngāi Takoto supported a desire for resource management and kaitiakitanga responsibility, but was concerned at possibly being excluded from being a participant in an area of coastline over which it claims mana-whenua/mana-moana. It identified particular concerns with the manner in which the proposal was originally expressed, including: the omission of Ngāi Takoto and Ngāti Kuri as iwi of Te Hiku o Te Ika; the reference to Te Aupōuri’s exclusive kaitiakitanga over Waka Te Haua; the suggestion that there had been sufficient consultation with tāngata whenua; the reference to Waka Te Haua being owned by the people of Te Kao; and the claim that Waka Te Haua is exclusive to Te Aupōuri. Ngāi Takoto was particularly concerned at the proposal’s implications of exclusivity in favour of Te Aupōuri and considered that any committee of management must include Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto.

[68] The submission concluded by noting that Ngāi Takoto was willing to be consulted. As explained elsewhere, Ngāi Takoto participated in discussions with Te Aupōuri and Ngāti Kuri and while their overall differences were not resolved, Te Aupōuri subsequently removed reference to “exclusive” kaitiakitanga from the proposal.

[69] Mangu and Whiti Awarau gave evidence for Ngāi Takoto at the hearing.

[70] Mangu Awarau gave whakapapa evidence identifying some of the common ancestors and close links of the five iwi of Te Hiku o Te Ika. He emphasised a commonality of interests and sought to promote unity and harmony within the five iwi.

[71] I note that in the final statement on behalf of Ngāi Takoto filed on 1 December 2011, Whiti Awarau stated that it is:

"a historical fact that Te Aupōuri came under the mana of both Ngāi Takoto and Ngāti Kuri through the arranged unions of marriage which my tuakana, Mangu Awarau had articulated in his recital of the whakapapa of Muriwhenua at the judicial hearing that was held at the Kaitaia District Court, with tuku whenua established the implementations of kaitiakitanga was able to proceed under the mana of Ngāi Takoto and Ngāti Kuri."

[72] This statement infers that Mangu Awarau gave evidence that Te Aupōuri came under the mana of Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto. That is not the case. A careful reading of the transcript confirms that Mangu Awarau did not claim that Te Aupōuri came under the mana of Ngāi Takoto and Ngāti Kuri, whether by arranged marriages, tuku whenua or otherwise. Rather, he was very careful to emphasise the commonality of interests and relationships. Whiti Awarau’s statement otherwise has very little evidential value as it was unsubstantiated, and I certainly do not accept that it is evidence of “historical fact”. It certainly represented Ngāi Takoto’s final position, which appeared to have hardened following the hearing where it was more conciliatory.

[73] Returning to Mangu Awarau’s evidence, he emphasised that Ngāi Takoto sought a unified approach to fisheries issues and saw the Forum and the proposed Statutory Board for Te Oneroa a Tohe as the best path forward. He maintained that discrete taiapure were not the solution for fisheries management and that a fisheries plan for the whole of Te Hiku o Te Ika was required.

[74] In answer to questions, Mangu Awarau clarified that the Ngāi Takoto kāinga (communities) were at Mahimaru, Waimanoni, Waipapakauri, Paparore and Kaimaumau, which are all near or on the shores of Rangaunu Harbour. He said that Ngāi Takoto also fished at Waka Te Haua, Te Oneroa a Tohe and elsewhere. He acknowledged that at times some of Te Aupōuri went to Rangaunu Harbour to fish, which is within Ngāi Takoto’s rohe (he did not regard Rangaunu as belonging to Ngāi Takoto, but rather Ngāi Takoto belonging to Rangaunu).

[75] Mangu Awarau spoke of the customs and practices applying to the harvesting of pioke (dogfish) in Rangaunu Harbour to illustrate the different roles and relationships of the iwi of Te Hiku o Te Ika. (This would seem to be the same historical practice discussed in some detail in the Muriwhenua Fishing Report.) That is, at a certain