NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE, No. 99 — 27 SEPTEMBER 2017

[137] I am satisfied that the size of the taiapure is appropriate. I note that the taiapure is approximately 10 km2 in size. It is a negligible area to be excluded from the netting and long-lining commercial fishery but is obviously significant to Te Aupōuri, and is important to the wider Māori and general communities that undertake customary and recreational fishing.

[138] I am satisfied that the taiapure will not have an adverse impact on the general welfare of the community in the vicinity. I note that, apart from those within the fishing industry involved in mussel spat harvesting and the iwi objectors, no one else within the general community objected to the taiapure. I conclude that it would be in the interests of the general community in the vicinity for Te Aupōuri to be able to recommend regulations for the conservation and management of the fishery.

[139] I have considered the impact of the taiapure on those persons having a “special interest” in the taiapure.

[140] First, it can be said that Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto (as well as other iwi of Te Hiku o Te Ika) might have a special interest in the taiapure in terms of their harvesting of kaimoana. The ability of those iwi to continue to undertake those tasks will not be so affected that the taiapure could be considered to be inappropriate. In particular, in accordance with my earlier findings, I conclude that it is appropriate for Te Aupōuri, through the committee of management it has nominated, to be responsible for recommending regulations to the Minister. This is consistent with its traditional role as kaitiaki. I do not consider that Ngāti Kuri or Ngāi Takoto should share in that primary role through the committee of management. However, I consider that Te Aupōuri has a duty to consult with Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto before recommending any regulations to the Minister.

[141] Second, the fishing industry might also be considered to have a special interest in the taiapure. As explained, the concerns of the fishing industry in relation to mussel spat harvesting have been addressed and the industry’s objections have been withdrawn. I note that there was no objection from the fishing industry to the proposed banning of commercial netting and long-lining, and that significant industry members such as Sanford Limited filed submissions on the mussel spat issue.

[142] Finally, given all of the factors and evidence presented, the taiapure is appropriate having regard to its impact on fisheries management.

D. CONCLUSION

Recommendation

[143] In terms of s 181(8)(a) of the Act, I recommend that the Minister implement the current taiapure proposal (as previously amended) but with a further amendment to provide that the proposed committee of management, the Rūnanga Nui, be required to consult with Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto before recommending any regulations to the Minister.

Concluding remarks

[144] On behalf of Mr Taumaunu and myself, I wish to express our appreciation to all of the parties, iwi representatives and witnesses for the dedicated manner in which they presented their submissions and evidence to the Tribunal. I regret that various circumstances have meant that this report could not be completed earlier.

[145] I emphasise that my findings are based on the submissions and evidence presented to the inquiry. I have considered all the submissions and evidence, even though the detail of some may not have been expressly referred to in this report. Furthermore, I emphasise that the findings and recommendations relate to the taiapure only, and not any other issues between the iwi.

[146] Finally, Mr Taumaunu and I consider that the taiapure has great merit and trust that it can be implemented without too much further delay.

Dated at Whangarei this 31st day of October 2012.

JUDGE D J AMBLER, Tribunal.
MR H. TAUMAUNU, Assessor.

APPENDIX A

Inquiry process

Publication of proposal and objections

[1] Following the lodging of the proposal and the initial amendments, the then Minister agreed in principle to the proposal on 28 July 2008 in terms of section 178(2) of the Act. The proposal was published in the New Zealand Gazette on 11 September 2008. In terms of section 180 of the Act, any objections or submissions had to be lodged with the Māori Land Court at Whangārei by 11 November 2008.