NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE, No. 99 — 27 SEPTEMBER 2017

significance of the issue in the inquiry. I regard these statements of Mr Petera and Mangu Awarau as being of limited value. Mr Karena, for Te Aupōuri, described Mr Petera’s evidence of his role as kaitiaki as merely amounting to occasionally sitting on Waka Te Haua. To be fair to Mr Petera, I believe he was endeavouring to articulate the spiritual significance of the area rather than suggesting that he performed a role similar to that of Te Aupōuri. As for the reference to Mr Karaka’s evidence of Moko Rewi’s role, that evidence certainly speaks to Moko Rewi’s relationship with Ngāti Kahu kaumātua and their deference to him. But it explains very little of his role as kaitiaki of the fishery resource or how his harvesting of kaimoana at Waka Te Haua sat in cultural terms with Te Aupōuri’s role as the acknowledged haukāinga and kaitiaki. Mangu Awarau’s evidence lacked any detail or examples.

[110] Overall, the evidence of Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto was so lacking in detail of the nature, frequency and duration of their performing a kaitiaki role that I can only conclude that they do not perform a role akin to that which Te Aupōuri performs. But that is not a criticism of Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto – it is simply the reality of them not being the haukāinga, their communities being much more distant and they having other fisheries of special significance to look after.

[111] I therefore conclude that Te Aupōuri performs the role of kaitiaki in respect of the conservation and management of the fishery at Waka Te Haua, and that Te Aupōuri’s role falls within its rangatiratanga under the Treaty. At the time of the Treaty, Te Aupōuri would no doubt have exercised a far greater degree of control of the fishery than it does today. I further conclude that Te Aupōuri’s role mirrors that of Ngāi Takoto in relation to pioke at Rangaunu, as recounted by Mangu Awarau – a role, no doubt, performed by other iwi in relation to various fisheries on Te Hiku o Te Ika. But, importantly, Te Aupōuri performs that role as the haukāinga on behalf of the wider community, including its neighbouring iwi. Tutangiora Nathan of Te Aupōuri best expressed it in this way:

Te toka, na tātou katoa, horekau na Te Aupōuri anake. Engari ko Te Kao ngā kaitiaki.

(Waka Te Haua belongs to us all, not just Te Aupōuri, but those of Te Kao are the guardians.)

[112] Finally, I note that when Mangu Awarau compared Waka Te Haua and Rangaunu, he said that the difference was that in the past there was always discussion through hui. I accept this. In my view, that means that Te Aupōuri’s role as kaitiaki includes a duty to consult with their fellow iwi who claim interests, namely, Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto. I return below to what that means for the taiapure proposal.

Will the recognition of Te Aupōuri as kaitiaki of Waka Te Haua contravene Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto’s mana?

[113] Having concluded that Te Aupōuri has mana-whenua, that it is the haukāinga and that it performs the role of kaitiaki, the question then arises as to whether recognition of that role will contravene Ngāti Kuri or Ngāi Takoto’s mana – whether mana-whenua or mana-moana.

[114] The iwi objectors’ concerns were best summed up in Whiti Awarau’s final statement on behalf of Ngāi Takoto. That is, first, that mana-whenua and kaitiakitanga cannot be separated, and second, that the approval of the taiapure will adversely affect their Treaty settlement process:

As stated in the submissions by Mr Subritzky of behalf of Te Aupōuri that the fundamental differences of opinion in reference to Mana Whenua and Kaitiakitanga are at odds with Te Aupōuri . Ngāi Takoto strongly opposes these views and statements as we view Mana Whenua and Kaitiakitanga as intrinsic to the lores and practices of Tikanga Māori, as one cannot work without the other unless it has been given under the protocols of Tuku Whenua.

…

We Ngāi Takoto maintain our customary rights under the articles of Te Tiriti of Waitangi that with the approval of this application will adversely affect a just and fair outcome to our Treaty Settlement Claims. (sic)

[115] As to the first point, I do not agree that what Te Aupōuri seeks amounts to a distortion of tikanga Māori (Māori customs) by separating mana-whenua and kaitiakitanga. Rather, it merely recognises that within tikanga Māori certain groups amongst iwi or hapū take on the responsibility of kaitiaki of a resource for others. That is an exercise of rangatiratanga, most usually performed by the haukāinga. But the suggestion that all who claim mana-whenua also exercise that aspect of rangatiratanga is plainly not supported by the evidence. Te Aupōuri, as the haukāinga, clearly carries out that role at Waka Te Haua, just as Ngāi Takoto performed that role in relation to the pioke resource at Rangaunu.

[116] As to the second point, I do not agree that recognition of the role that Te Aupōuri performs as kaitiaki will have a significant impact on Treaty settlements or other aspects of mana-whenua. Any findings and recommendations that I make relate only to the taiapure and not Treaty settlement or other issues. The taiapure will not substantially change the role that Te Aupōuri has performed in the past as kaitiaki – a role that Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto both acknowledge. Te Aupōuri will simply be able to recommend regulations to the Minister. Furthermore, the taiapure will not alter the relationship of the various iwi with Te Oneroa a Tohe. As for the nomination of the Rūnanga Nui as the committee of management, that simply reflects a modernisation of iwi