Notification of the Porangahau Taiapure-Local Fishery Proposal (Recommendations and Decisions) Notice (No. F31) Pursuant to subsection 9 (b) of section 54g of the Fisheries Act 1983, the Minister of Fisheries, after taking into account the report and recommendations of a tribunal established pursuant to that section, and after having regard to the provisions of section 54b (3) of the Fisheries Act 1983, and after consultation with the Minister of Maori Affairs, is to publish the report and recommendations of the tribunal considering the Porangahau Taiapure-Local Fishery proposal, and the Minister's decision on that report and those recommendations. (i) Report and Recommendations of the Tribunal Pursuant to section 54g (9) (b) (i) of the Fisheries Act 1983, the Minister of Fisheries, after taking into account the report and recommendations of a tribunal established pursuant to section 54g of the Fisheries Act 1983, after having regard to the provisions of section 54b (3) of the Fisheries Act and after consultation with the Minister of Maori Affairs, hereby publishes the report and recommendations of the tribunal considering the Porangahau Taiapure-Local Fishery proposal: ``In the matter of S 54G of The Fisheries Act 1983, and in the matter of a proposal by Ngati Kere of Porangahau to establish Nga Taonga O Ngati Kere Taiapure local fishery. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE HONOURABLE MINISTER OF FISHERIES (S.54G8) FISHERIES ACT 1983 This Tribunal is constituted pursuant to section 54g of the Fisheries Act 1983 (the Act) and has conducted a public inquiry into all objections and submissions submitted to the Registrar of the Maori Land Court of New Zealand (Takitimu Registry) (the Registrar) made in respect of a proposal by Ngati Kere to establish a taiapure - local fishery in respect of coastline from Cape Turnagain north some 41.5 km such proposal having been agreed to in principle by the Minister of Fisheries, after consultation with the Minister of Maori Affairs and after having regard to the provisions of section 54b (3) of the Act. The area the subject of the proposal are as follows: The area those estuarine or littoral coastal waters contained within a line commencing at the eastern-most point of Cape Turnagain (at 4029.19s and E17637.28E), then proceeding in a north-easterly direction to the mouth of the stream at (4011.50s and 17648.29E), then proceeding in a south-westerly direction to position at (4016.34S and 17633.35E), then proceeding in a southerly direction to the point of commencement. The proposal was submitted to the Minister and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries effected the statutory steps as required by the Act culminating in receipt by the Registrar of submissions and objections thus necessitating the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court constituting this Tribunal by appointing Heta Kenneth Hingston, Esquire, a Judge of the Maori Land Court to conduct this inquiry. The Registrar received written submissions some supporting the proposal others objecting to it. The enquiry commenced at the Maori Land Court, Hastings at 9.00 a.m. November 1994 was adjourned to and completed on 6 December 1994. The following persons for and on behalf of the proponents participated in the inquiry: Mr Nik Scia Scia Mr Richard Hawea The Honourable Duncan MacIntyre Mr James Hutchinson Ms Myra Smith Mr Denzyl Hokianga Mr Reihana Scia Scia Mr John Ormond Mr Albert Wheatly (Hawkes Bay Fisherman Association) [xt] As well there were many local Maori who attended but did not take an active part. The following persons having lodged objection appeared and spoken in support thereof: [rt] Mr Rod Hansen Mr John Condliffe Mr Keith Walker Diane Peterson Mr Maxwell Hetherington (NZ Underwater Association) Mr Richard Cade (Federation of Commercial Fisherman) Mr Daryl Sykes (NZ Fishing Industry Board) Mr Mike Stevens (Moana Pacific Ltd) Applicant's case Mr Nick Sciascia opened for the applicants and he was supported by Mr John Ormond who along with the Honourable Duncan MacIntyre described to the inquiry the nature effect, and reason why the Taihapere Fishery was sought. Anticipating that there would be objections from residents of Blackhead Beach. Mr Ormond explained that the boundary of the fishery was extended north along Blackhead beach from Blackhead Point to ensure protection of the reefs off the point. He acknowledged that the initial public consultation was on the basis of the Fishery commencing at Blackhead Point. Both Messrs Ormond and MacIntyre addressed the question whether the area encompassed by the proposed fishery was capable of being described as within littoral and estuarine waters. The applicant's also referred to the proposed D.O.C marine reserve between Blackhead Village and Ouepoto Beach. The support of the people, both Maori and Non Maori, of Porangahau and surrounding coastal areas was obvious; the ``local'' objection came from Blackhead Beach residents. The other supporters of the proposal spoke of the depletion of fish/shell fish in the Bay fronting Porangahau, due they said to the over fishing by commercial interests. All supporters of the proposed fishery were firmly of the view that the depletion must be arrested and the proposals were all to that end. The applicants in their submissions envisaged a management committee representative of Non Maori interests as well as the local iwi. Objector's Argument The objections that appeared before the tribunal fall broadly into two categories: (a) Blackhead Beach residents (b) The Fishing Industry The Blackhead Beach objectors Messrs Hansen Condliffe and Walker and Ms Peterson explained that the initial information they had received was of a Fishery commencing at Blackhead Point then moving south along the coast. They collectively did not want the Fishery extending north primarily because the Blackhead residents had supported the D.O.C proposed marine reserve. They believe the area of Blackhead Beach between the proposed fishery and the proposed marine reserve will be exploited by the commercial Fishing Industry and if fisherman are excluded from the Taiapure area their recreational fishery will suffer greatly. These persons acknowledged that something should be done to arrest fishery resource depletion but because they had earlier supported the D.O.C reserve they maintained their objections to the Taiapure proposals. Fishing Industry In essence their objection is to the scope of the proposals. The various speakers are firmly of the opinion that the area sought by the applicants is without the definition of littoral/estuarine waters. Quoting from Hansard they argue that forty odd kilometres of coastline and up to seven kilometres depth is not ``discrete'' as envisaged by the legislators. These objectors also produced definitions of littoral in an attempt to have the tribunal at the very least recommend that the proposed area be reduced. The objectors argue (with some justification) that the legislation is messy apparently conceived and passed in haste and the applicants as well the objectors are now paying the price. The objectors were not against the idea of a Taiapure Fishery at Porangahau but felt obliged to object as mentioned above because of the wider implication of such a large area being accepted as a Taiapure Fishery. The objectors did not concede that the fisheries resource had depleted to the extent suggested by the applicants. The objectors were also of the opinion that if the Taiapure Fishery was to be established the suggestion by the applicants that there be a management committee comprising Non Maori as well as Maori, should be addressed and actioned by the Minister in due course. Conclusions In the Palliser Bay Taiapure enquiries the tribunal there said: ``A more valid objection is the definition of estuarine and littoral coastal waters; these unless clarified by legislation will prove to be a fruitful area for future objectors not to mention the legal profession'' This observation is greatly relevant to the stance of the objectors in the immediate proposals. The Tribunal is of the view that if the legislation had clearly defined the scope and extent that these Taiapure Fisheries could encompass, the objections of the Fishing Industry in the instant inquiry would have been considerably less. This Tribunal is not going to enter into the debate as to what is littoral and what is not; that may well be for the High Court on appeal or review; however as most of what the applicants seek can be accomplished even if the depth of the Fishery is lessened this appears to be the appropriate manner to deal with the questioning raised. It is noted that the proposed Marine Reserve extends a mile from the coastline and this appears a realistic maximum depth for this Taiapure proposal. Recommendation 1 That the proposed Taiapure Fishery be proceeded with subject to the seaward boundary being no more than one mile out from the low water mark at any point. The northern boundary to be as proposed ensuring that the Blackhead Point reef is within the Taiapure and south of the reef the boundary to follow the coastline. Notwithstanding the one mile restriction the boundary to be flexible enough to include any proven traditional fishing reefs that are within the original proposals. 2 That the Minister, if this Taiapure Fishery is created, when appointing a management committe take into account the wish of the applicants and some objectors that there be Non-Maori included. Dated at Rotorua this 17th day of February 1995. H. K. HINGSTON (Judge).'' (ii) Decision of the Minister of Fisheries Pursuant to section 54g (9) (b) (ii) of the Fisheries Act 1983, the Minister of Fisheries, after taking into account the report and recommendations of a tribunal established pursuant to section 54g of the Fisheries Act 1983 (set out in (i) above), after having regard to the provisions of section 54b (3) of the Fisheries Act and after consultation with the Minister of Maori Affairs, hereby publishes his decisions made in regard to the report and recommendations of the tribunal considering the Porangahau Taiapure-Local Fishery proposal. i. In regard to the tribunal's first recommendation. I am satisfied that it is appropriate for me to recommend to the Governor-General that he declare a taiapure-local fishery at Porangahau with a boundary commencing at Cape Turnagain (4029.4S, 17637.4E) and proceeding along a straight line (bearing 025T) to 4026.7S, 17639.1E and then continuing in a generally northerly direction at a distance of one nautical mile from the shoreline at MHWS to 4014.2S, 17647.0E and then in a straight line (bearing 025T) to the mouth of an unnamed stream north of Blackhead Point at 4011.7S, 17648.5E. ii In regard to the tribunal's second recommendation, I consider that this counsel is not applicable until the taiapure-local fishery has been declared by Order in Council, published in the Gazette. However, I have noted that the proponents are clear in their view that they want a range of interests represented on the management committee. This clearly parallels the view of the tribunal. Dated at Wellington this 4th day of June 1996. D. L. KIDD, Minister of Fisheries.