✨ Tribunal Report on Taiapure
NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE, No. 99 — 27 SEPTEMBER 2017
The meeting with iwi representatives
C. ISSUES
Inter-iwi issues
Introduction
Mana-whenua
Kaitiakitanga
Will the recognition of Te Aupōuri as kaitiaki of Waka Te Haua contravene Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto’s mana?
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?
Statutory criteria
Section 176(2)(a) – will the order further the object set out in s 174?
Section 176(2)(b) – is the taiapure appropriate having regard to its size, impact on the general welfare of the community in the vicinity, impact on those persons having a special interest in the taiapure, and impact on fisheries management?
D. CONCLUSION
Recommendation
Concluding remarks
APPENDIX A
Inquiry process
Publication of proposal and objections
Appointment of Tribunal and judicial conferences
Hearing meeting with iwi representatives
APPENDIX B
Map of the proposed taiapure
APPENDIX C
Schedule of submissions
Tēnā koe e te Minita o te Manatū Ahu Matua
A. PRELIMINARY MATTERS
Introduction
[1] This report is issued pursuant to s 181(8) of the Fisheries Act 1996 ("Act") following an inquiry into Te Aupōuri’s proposal to establish a taiapure-local fishery ("taiapure") in relation to the waters surrounding Waka Te Haua – also known as Maunganui or Maunganui Bluff or the Bluff – on Te Oneroa a Tohe (Ninety Mile Beach).
[2] Judicial conferences were held in 2009 and 2010, followed by a four day hearing between 29 August and 1 September 2011 where the views of the proposer and objectors were considered. I also held a meeting with iwi representatives in October 2011. The inquiry process was extensive and is summarised in Appendix A.
[3] Objections to the proposal fell into two categories.
[4] First, members of the commercial fishing industry objected to the taiapure restricting mussel spat harvesting. Following discussions between Te Aupōuri and fishing industry representatives, mussel spat harvesting was removed from the scope of the taiapure. As a consequence, the industry withdrew its objection.
[5] Second, two iwi of Te Hiku o Te Ika (the Far North peninsular), Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto, objected to the taiapure on the basis that it would affect their mana over Waka Te Haua and Te Oneroa a Tohe in general. Notwithstanding considerable efforts by iwi representatives to resolve their differences during the inquiry process, they were not able to do so. The hearing was therefore, solely concerned with inter-iwi issues. This report focuses on those issues.
[6] I note that Ngāti Kahu belatedly withdrew its original support for the taiapure to oppose it. The fifth iwi of Te Hiku o Te Ika, Te Rarawa, did not file a submission and did not participate in the inquiry. (I refer to Ngāti Kuri, Ngāi Takoto and Ngāti Kahu collectively as the "iwi objectors").
[7] The overarching issue raised by the taiapure proposal is whether it is appropriate to give statutory recognition to Te Aupōuri as kaitiaki (stewards or guardians) of the fisheries waters surrounding Waka Te Haua
Next Page →
NZ Gazette 2017, No 99
✨ LLM interpretation of page content
🌾
Report and Recommendations of the Tribunal
(continued from previous page)
🌾 Primary Industries & ResourcesTaiāpure, Local Fishery, Tribunal Report, Te Aupōuri, Fisheries Act 1996, Judicial Conferences, Hearing, Meeting, Iwi, Kaitiakitanga, Mana Whenua, Ngāti Kuri, Ngāi Takoto, Ngāti Kahu, Te Rarawa