NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE, No. 99 — 27 SEPTEMBER 2017

Court: That’s fine. But, can I come to this then, if Te Kao is the haukāinga and the haukāinga is responsible for looking after that fishery and they say, "Well, we do want to use this new body, Te Rūnanga Nui O Te Aupōuri to carry out that function", what is the issue with that? What is the problem with that?

W Awarau: The issue being it is not – and you know, like I have said earlier, we have no problems as it has stood in terms of its management being held by the Maunganui Bluff trustees. It is the transitional agency where we have an issue with because that is where their corporate body stands. Now – and the issue of the taiapure, I think, it needs to be responded in terms of the decline of fishes right across Te Oneroa a Tohe. Because, you know, fishes don’t – I mean, they travel and they don’t have boundaries. So, what – if they are not caught – if a pier net doesn’t catch them at Te Wakatehaua the pier net will still catch them up at Tanutanu on Reef Point in Ahipara or the pier net will catch them on–

Court: So, there is a need for it elsewhere?

W Awarau: That’s right.

Ngāti Kahu

[79] Ngāti Kahu’s approach to the inquiry process was problematic. It withdrew its support for the taiapure at the last moment, presented evidence that could not be tested or verified to any degree, and expressed views on Waka Te Haua when it lies outside of its own rohe. Ngāti Kahu’s stance on Te Aupōuri’s interests in Te Hiku o Te Ika was by far the most uncompromising.

[80] Ngāti Kahu originally filed a submission dated 8 November 2008 advising that (in bold) "Ngāti Kahu supports the application". The submission was filed by Mr V C Holloway, Environmental Resource Manager of Te Rūnanga-a-Iwi o Ngāti Kahu. Ngāti Kahu, like all other submitters, received notice of the judicial conferences in 2009 and 2010, and Mr Holloway in fact attended one on 18 November 2010. But the iwi gave no notice of its change of position until the first day of the hearing on 29 August 2011. Although I had concerns about whether I should allow Ngāti Kahu to change its position almost three years after the closing date for submissions, I nevertheless allowed it to participate fully in the hearing.

[81] On the first day of the hearing Mr Karaka advised that Mr Holloway and a kaumātua, Herewini Karaka, would give evidence on behalf of Ngāti Kahu. However, at the beginning of the third day Mr Karaka advised that Ngāti Kahu would only be presenting a letter explaining why Ngāti Kahu had withdrawn its support for the taiapure, and that no other evidence would be presented. Mr Karaka presented the said letter and nevertheless gave evidence. He spoke of his limited experience of fishing at Waka Te Haua and Ngāti Kahu’s interests on Te Hiku o Te Ika. He said that on the one or two occasions that he went to Waka Te Haua to gather kaimoana as a child of about 12, a kaumātua of Ngāti Kahu would first ask the permission of Moko Rewi, a kaumātua of Ngāti Kuri. He also referred to Mr Herewini Karaka having signed a letter in the 1980s whereby Ngāi Takoto (which was said to have formerly been a hapū of Ngāti Kahu) purportedly became an iwi in its own right.

[82] The primary relevance of Mr Karaka’s evidence is that Ngāti Kahu claims its traditional territory as far north as Hukatere on Te Oneroa a Tohe, which is approximately 30 kilometres south of Waka Te Haua. That is, Ngāti Kahu does not claim mana-whenua in relation to Waka Te Haua.

[83] The letter Mr Karaka presented was from Professor Margaret Mutu as chairperson of Te Rūnanga-a-Iwi o Ngāti Kahu. It was dated 30 August 2011. Professor Mutu did not attend the hearing. In the letter she explained that Ngāti Kahu’s initial support for the taiapure proposal was withdrawn once it had viewed Te Aupōuri’s application. She did not explain when Ngāti Kahu changed its view – and Mr Karaka was not able to provide an answer – but clearly Ngāti Kahu would have had an opportunity to view Te Aupōuri’s application well before the judicial conferences began in 2009. Professor Mutu said that from Ngāti Kahu’s perspective, Te Aupōuri "are not and have never been mana-whenua anywhere on Te Oneroa a Tohe including at Waka Te Haua". She said that Te Aupōuri originated in the Hokianga and "came only relatively recently to their present location around Te Kao." She referred to various texts and archival records which purportedly support this view but did not provide copies of them and nor did she identify the particular statements that she was relying on.

The meeting with iwi representatives

[84] At the conclusion of the hearing the differences between the iwi were clear yet I perceived there remained an opportunity to resolve those differences. I indicated that Mr Taumaunu and I were interested in having a round-table discussion with iwi representatives to explore possible solutions to the impasse. All the parties agreed. This meeting took place on 11 October 2011 and was recorded and transcribed at the request of the parties.

[85] A brief summary of the meeting is all that is required. I explained to the iwi representatives that I considered that, given their shared concern for fisheries management, the merit in taking a unified approach and the fact that the taiapure proposal was the first of its kind in the area, there might be an opportunity for the iwi to reach agreement and thereby establish a template for approaching fisheries management in this and other areas of Te