NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE, No. 99 — 27 SEPTEMBER 2017

[95] Ngāti Kahu challenged Te Aupōuri’s interests in the strongest terms but presented the least evidence. Professor Mutu’s statements in her letter of 30 August 2011 were unsubstantiated and have limited evidential value. Those of Ngāti Kuri who did challenge Te Aupōuri’s mana-whenua – and I note that not all did – nevertheless acknowledged Te Aupōuri’s occupation of the land from 50 years before the time of Captain Cook. The essence of Ngāti Kuri’s position is that it says that it is an ancient tribe and that Te Aupōuri’s occupation of Te Hiku o Te Ika for over 250 years is not long enough to establish mana-whenua. This argument is plainly contradicted by the numerous examples of iwi elsewhere in the country who established their mana-whenua a mere decade or two before the Treaty, often displacing the mana of earlier iwi. I reject the argument. As for Ngāi Takoto’s position, contrary to the final statement submitted by Whiti Awarau, the evidence of Mangu Awarau did not purport to challenge Te Aupōuri’s mana or suggest that its rights derive from particular arranged marriages or tuku whenua. Overall, the evidence of Ngāti Kahu, Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto simply does not displace the substantial evidence of Te Aupōuri’s mana-whenua.

[96] Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto’s primary concern is that granting the taiapure will undermine their mana-whenua. They gave evidence of their mana-whenua on Te Hiku o Te Ika in general – which, I note, was not challenged – but very little evidence in relation to Waka Te Haua itself. Te Aupōuri expressly acknowledged Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto’s “ancestral connections” to Waka Te Haua and their right to harvest there, but did not go as far as to expressly acknowledge their “mana-whenua”. Te Aupōuri’s approach is consistent with its view that mana-whenua is not the issue between it and Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto. Instead, it sees the real issue as its role as kaitiaki.

[97] Nevertheless, the evidence from the iwi objectors lacked the substance and detail for me to conclude that Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto also hold mana-whenua at Waka Te Haua. Importantly, I do not conclude that they do not hold a mana-whenua interest. Rather, the evidence presented was simply insufficient to persuade me on balance that they do hold an interest. Certainly, I reject the claim that Te Aupōuri’s mana-whenua derives from Ngāti Kuri or Ngāi Takoto. But even if the evidence was sufficient for me to conclude that Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto also hold mana-whenua at Waka Te Haua, that would not answer the more relevant issue raised by the taiapure proposal. As I explained earlier, the Act is not primarily concerned with the mana of iwi or hapū but rather the exercise of rangatiratanga by iwi or hapū in terms of the management and conservation of a fishery. That is, the actual exercise of kaitiakitanga. I now turn to the issue of kaitiakitanga.

Kaitiakitanga

[98] In my view, the question of who exercises the role of kaitiaki in relation to Waka Te Haua requires an assessment of three interlinked factors. These are either explicit or implicit in the Act. They are also factors that mirror the concept of kaitiakitanga discussed by the various iwi witnesses. First, who is the haukāinga or local Māori community? The evidence is clear that within the Māori world the haukāinga has a particular role as kaitiaki of resources. Second, for whom can the fishery be said to be of “special significance”? This is an express qualifier in s 174 of the Act. Third, who has traditionally exercised the role of kaitiaki in terms of the management and conservation of the fishery? Each of these factors must be assessed on the evidence.

[99] Te Aupōuri says that its community at Te Kao is the haukāinga, that Waka Te Haua is its kāpata kai (food cupboard) and of “special significance” to it, and that it has carried out the role of kaitiaki for generations.

[100] In my assessment, the evidence clearly demonstrates that the people of Te Kao, being Te Aupōuri, are the haukāinga in relation to Waka Te Haua. This was in fact, expressly acknowledged by Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto. In traditional terms, they would be regarded as the ahikāroa – those who have maintained the fires on the land.

[101] The evidence also demonstrates that the Waka Te Haua fishery is of special significance to Te Aupōuri. That is because of its historical association with Te Aupōuri, its abundance as a resource for Te Aupōuri, its close proximity to Te Kao, and the fact that Maunganui Bluff Reserve is administered by and for the people of Te Kao. Conversely, the evidence of Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto did not establish that the fishery was of “special significance” to them. The fact that from time to time the people of Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto also fish there is insufficient to prove special significance for the purposes of the Act.

[102] The evidence also clearly demonstrates that it is the people of Te Aupōuri who practice the role of kaitiaki in relation to Waka Te Haua and the surrounding fishery. The Te Aupōuri witnesses gave detailed evidence in this regard, which I summarised earlier (paragraph 50). They spoke of a longstanding, intimate and comprehensive exercise of kaitiakitanga. The iwi objectors did not challenge that evidence and their witnesses in fact, acknowledged Te Aupōuri’s role. The fact that Te Aupōuri performs that role should not come as a surprise given the iwi’s close connection to Waka Te Haua.

[103] It is worth recording Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto’s acknowledgements of Te Aupōuri’s role as the haukāinga and kaitiaki. Although Mr Neho chose not to give evidence, he did not challenge the minutes of an iwi taiapure hui held at Potahi Marae, Te Kao on 2 October 2010 where he acknowledged Waka Te Haua to be synonymous with Te Kao and Te Aupōuri:

Tautoko Bob Wells and Mere Rollo. I acknowledge that Waka Te Haua is a “cupboard” synonymous to Te Kao