NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE, No. 99 — 27 SEPTEMBER 2017

institutions. I certainly do not consider that Te Aupōuri should be denied a fisheries management tool such as a taiapure simply because other iwi do not agree with the Te Kao community’s nomination of the Rūnanga Nui as the committee of management.

[117] In summary, while I recognise that Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto are genuinely anxious about any statutory recognition of other iwi on Te Hiku o Te Ika, I conclude that their concerns are misplaced. As I have been at pains to explain, the taiapure regime aims only to recognise the kaitiaki role of iwi and hapū – and Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto openly acknowledge that Te Aupōuri performs that role in relation to Waka Te Haua. Furthermore, it does not impact on the relationship of the various iwi with Te Oneroa a Tohe. Were I to adopt the approach advocated by the iwi objectors, I would be guilty of over-simplifying the dynamic relationships and roles of iwi, hapū and haukāinga within tikanga Māori. Further; I would be ignoring the plain evidence of the practice of tikanga Māori at Waka Te Haua. To the extent that Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto have an interest at Waka Te Haua, it can be appropriately accommodated by requiring Te Aupōuri through the Rūnanga Nui to consult those two iwi before recommending regulations to the Minister.

Should the taiapure not be implemented so that the iwi can pursue a unified approach to fisheries management through the Forum, the Statutory Board or negotiations with the Crown?

[118] The iwi objectors argue that the taiapure will undermine the efforts by the five iwi of Te Hiku o Te Ika to achieve a unified approach to fisheries management through the Forum, the Statutory Board and possible negotiations with the Crown. Some argue that there are more appropriate fisheries management tools within the current statutory framework, while others argue that they should be negotiating with the Crown for a more comprehensive and innovative fisheries management plan for Te Hiku o Te Ika.

[119] While I agree that it would have been ideal for the five iwi to take a unified approach to fisheries issues – and as noted, the very reason Mr Taumaunu and I returned to Kaitāia for the private meeting was to explore such possibilities – I do not believe that is a sufficient reason to delay or decline the taiapure proposal.

[120] First, the five iwi have expended a significant amount of time, energy and resources in endeavouring to take a unified approach to Treaty settlements, management of Te Oneroa a Tohe and fisheries issues, with varying degrees of success. The position at the conclusion of the hearings was that each of the five iwi were negotiating Treaty settlements independently of each other; the Forum only comprised four of the iwi following Ngāti Kahu’s withdrawal; the proposed Statutory Board had yet to be finalised (and it is unclear what impact Ngāti Kahu’s withdrawal from the Forum will have on that proposal); and there was simply no agreed approach to fisheries management issues. Indeed, even the MOU, which the taiapure inquiry process appears to have helped to bring to finalisation, has only been signed by Te Aupōuri, Ngāti Kuri and Te Rarawa. Furthermore, Te Rarawa has initiated its own fisheries management strategy at the southern end of Te Oneroa a Tohe at Tauroa Point. I have no confidence that the iwi will reach a consensus on fisheries issues were the taiapure to be delayed.

[121] Second, the proposed Statutory Board relates to Te Oneroa a Tohe only, that is, the beach. It does not relate to the fisheries waters. Indeed, I was told that the Ministry of Fisheries did not want fisheries issues bundled together with beach issues. Accordingly, the taiapure will have no impact on the proposed Statutory Board and its functions, and the Statutory Board in turn will have nothing to do with fisheries waters.

[122] Third, the evidence does not satisfy me that a taiapure is the wrong fisheries management tool for Waka Te Haua. Clearly, given that the mussel spat industry will continue at Waka Te Haua, a mātaitai is not suitable. Te Aupōuri explained in some detail why it had decided on a taiapure and those reasons appear valid.

[123] Fourth, I acknowledge that the iwi representatives have a genuine desire to negotiate with the Crown a total-fishery management regime for Te Hiku o Te Ika. The options discussed with Mr Taumaunu and I appear to fall well outside the current fisheries management tools. The iwi will no doubt continue to negotiate with the Crown. But any such regime remains purely hypothetical at this point in time. I do not believe it would be appropriate to delay or decline the taiapure proposal on the basis of a hope that something better can be negotiated.

[124] Finally, given Te Aupōuri’s traditional interests and role in relation to Waka Te Haua, it is appropriate that the iwi’s wishes be given effect to through the taiapure.

Statutory criteria

[125] Having addressed the inter-iwi issues I now address the statutory criteria set out in s 176(2) of the Act.

Section 176(2)(a) – will the order further the object set out in s 174?

[126] I am satisfied that a taiapure order will further the object of s 174 of the Act.

[127] The area of the taiapure was adjusted following advice from the Ministry of Fisheries. None of the original submitters or the iwi objectors disputed that the taiapure related to "littoral coastal waters", and the issue was