NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE, No. 99 — 27 SEPTEMBER 2017

[2] A number of objections and submissions were received. A full list is set out in Appendix C. Several members of the fishing industry objected to any restriction on mussel spat harvesting and two iwi, Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto, objected to the proposal in general. Te Rūnanga-a-Iwi o Ngāti Kahu lodged a submission supporting the proposal but at the commencement of the hearing in 2011 changed its view and opposed the proposal.

Appointment of Tribunal and judicial conferences

[3] On 8 May 2009 I was appointed as the Tribunal to enquire into the proposal and submissions pursuant to s 181(2) of the Act. I convened three judicial conferences in Kaitāia in preparation for the hearings.

[4] On 19 November 2009 I conducted the first judicial conference. This was publicly notified beforehand. Following the conference, I adjourned the inquiry to enable Te Aupōuri, Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto to discuss their respective interests and concerns, and to enable the fishing industry interests to discuss whether they would be taking a common approach to the inquiry.

[5] The second judicial conference took place on 23 March 2010. The three iwi sought further time to continue their discussions. Aquaculture New Zealand, representing the fishing industry interests, also expressed a wish to continue working with the iwi on a management plan. I adjourned the inquiry for six months to enable those discussions to take place.

[6] The third judicial conference took place on 18 November 2010. The three iwi had held discussions but without resolving their differences. Aquaculture New Zealand was continuing its discussions with iwi representatives. Te Aupōuri indicated that it would be amending its proposal. I allowed Te Aupōuri until 20 December 2010 to confirm any amendments to the proposal and adjourned the inquiry to a teleconference of the parties in early 2011 to prepare for the hearing.

[7] On 20 December 2010 Te Aupōuri advised of its amendments to the proposal (as discussed in the body of this report) and, in particular, advised that the restriction on mussel spat harvesting was withdrawn.

[8] Teleconferences took place between January and August 2011 to prepare for the hearing.

[9] On 19 April 2011 Mr Taumaunu was appointed as an assessor to assist me with the inquiry pursuant to s 181(3) of the Act.

[10] On 15 June 2011 a new objection to the proposal was received from Mr Kahi Harawira, purportedly on behalf of Ngāti Kuri. The objection was dated 31 May 2011. Any such objections had to be filed by 11 November 2008. As Mr Harawira’s objection was out of time, I rejected it and noted that consequently Mr Harawira was not entitled to make presentations at the hearing.

[11] On 4 August 2011 Aquaculture New Zealand, Te Aupōuri and Ngāti Kuri signed a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"). The MOU provides for an industry Code of Practice and the GLM 9 Management Plan, and for these two documents to be the subject of ongoing review. These documents addressed among other things mussel spat harvesting on Te-Oneroa-a-Tohe. Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa, which did not express a view on the taiapure proposal, also signed the MOU. Ngāi Takoto had yet to sign the MOU at the time of the hearing. Ngāti Kahu resolved not to sign the MOU.

Hearing

[12] The hearing took place at the Kaitāia District Court between 29 August and 1 September 2011. The iwi were not represented by counsel and used their own representatives.

[13] On 29 August 2011 Aquaculture New Zealand made a brief presentation confirming the withdrawal of the fishing industry’s objections. Between 29 August and 1 September 2011 Te Aupōuri, Ngāti Kuri, Ngāi Takoto and Ngāti Kahu presented submissions and evidence.

The meeting with iwi representatives

[14] At the conclusion of the hearing on 1 September 2011 the differences between Te Aupōuri and the iwi objectors remained. Mr Taumaunu and I agreed to return to Kaitāia for a final discussion with the iwi representatives to explore possible solutions to the impasse. Although the discussion was to be in the form of a meeting, the parties requested that it be recorded and transcribed as per a hearing.

The meeting took place on 11 October 2011. The meeting did not resolve the differences between the iwi.

[15] At the conclusion of the meeting I gave the parties an opportunity to file final statements. Final statements were received from Te Aupōuri dated 16 November 2011, from Ngāi Takoto dated 1 December 2011, from Ngāti Kuri dated 2 December 2011 and from Ngāti Kahu dated 7 December 2011. The positions of the iwi did not change in substance.

[16] A transcript of the hearing and meeting has been produced. The transcription of the hearing encountered