WHAKAPAPA

The arrival of Kupe in Aotearoa

Following the adventures of Māui who fished up Te Ika ā Māui (the North Island) from his waka (Te Waka ā Māui - the South Island of Aotearoa); is Kupe, who pursued Te Wheke o Muturangi from Hawaiki to Aotearoa, some 1,000 years ago, and is one of the first accounts of 'fishing' in Aotearoa.

Iwi migration to Aotearoa

More waka hourua followed Kupe over the next few hundred years, landing in various parts of Aotearoa. The seven waka hourua that arrived to Aotearoa were Tainui, Te Arawa, Mātaatua, Kurahaupō, Tokomaru, Aotea and Tākitimu.

Tino rangatiratanga

For over 500 years, iwi and hapū enjoyed an unimpeded, reciprocal relationship with the moana and the bounty it provided.

Trading kaimoana for other commodities was a common practice for iwi and hapū and helped to sustain communities and local Māori economies. Customary fisheries management tools, such as rāhui were established and utilised in order to protect fishing grounds as and when necessary.

The arrival of Captain James Cook, sealers and whalers

British explorer James Cook arrived in Te Tairāwhiti (Poverty Bay) in October 1769. Over the next 60 years contact between European and Māori grew. Sealers and whalers began arriving in their hundreds in the closing decades of the 18th century, with traders looking to develop new markets. Māori begin trade relationships and partnerships with pākehā settlers.

The Crown arrive in Aotearoa

James Busby appointed as Britain's first official resident and representative in Aotearoa on behalf of the Crown.

He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni

In 1831, 13 Ngāpuhi chiefs wrote to King William IV of the United Kingdom to seek an alliance and protection from other powers. On 28 October 1835, James Busby took this a step further at a hui in Waitangi. By the end of the day 34 rangatira signed He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni (the Declaration of Independence of the United Tribes of New Zealand).

Land acquisition and Hobson's arrival to obtain sovereignty

The New Zealand Company begins acquiring Māori land for resale to British settlers. The Crown responds by sending Captain William Hobson to Aotearoa with instructions to obtain sovereignty over all or part of the country with the consent of Māori chiefs. Hobson arrived in the Bay of Islands on 29 January 1840.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi

A draft Treaty was presented to Māori on the grounds of Busby’s home at Waitangi. The merits of the document were debated for a day and a night before more than 40 chiefs, led by Hōne Heke Pōkai of Ngāpuhi, signed it on 6 February. By September, another 500 prominent Māori had signed copies of the treaty that had been sent around the country.

Article 2 states: "Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangatira, ki nga Hapu, ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani, te tino Rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga m o ratou taonga katoa."

"Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession."

Oyster Fisheries Act 1886 & Fish Protection Act 1877

Legislation such as the Oyster Fisheries Act of 1866 and the Fish Protection Act 1877 were amongst the first in a slew of laws and regulations imposed by the government to disconnect and isolate Māori from their fisheries. By the end of the 19th century, Māori were banned from the commercial harvesting of kaimoana; excluded from trading a commodity that had sustained them for centuries.

Customary rights reaffirmed

Tom Te Weehi (Ngāti Porou) was accosted by fisheries officers on Motunau Beach with 46 moderately undersized pāua. Tom had lived in North Canterbury for 13 years. Before collecting the shellfish, he had asked Ngāi Tahu kaumātua Rikiihia Tau if he could go fishing on the beach to gather food for personal use and family consumption.

Ngāi Tahu had a tradition of granting permission to members of historically “friendly” tribes. The Fisheries Act of the time stated at section 88(2) that “nothing in this Act shall affect any Māori fishing rights”.

In 1984 the provision was considered by most legal commentators not to have much significance. It repeated words that had been in fisheries laws in one form or another since 1877.

It had been referred to in the courts only a few times.

The District Court convicted Tom. He appealed. In a short judgment, the High Court quietly laid aside previous cases and said that section 88(2) meant just what it said: “The phrase ‘any Māori fishing rights’ in its plain ordinary meaning is a wide expression. The use of the word ‘any’ and the lack of capital letters for ‘fishing’ and ‘rights’ suggest that the phrase is meant to include all Māori fishing rights rather than just some particular or specific ones. There are no words of qualification.”

The High Court said it did not matter if the beach was no longer owned by Ngāi Tahu.

The common law in England had always recognised that fishing rights could be “non-territorial”, that is, held separately from ownership of the underlying land. As for the suggestion that Māori fishing rights no longer existed because there was no specific legislation protecting them, “if Parliament’s intention is to extinguish such customary or traditional rights then it will no doubt do so in clear terms following its exploration of claims by Māori tribes to specific customary rights.”

The High Court decision was issued in August 1986.

The Waitangi Tribunal wins retrospective powers

The Waitangi Tribunal is empowered through the advocacy of Māori leaders, to consider Treaty of Waitangi claims dating back to 1840. Previous to this the Tribunal was only able to hear breaches from 1975 onwards.

Introduction of the Quota Management System

In 1986, the government introduced the Quota Management System (QMS), which removed statutory recognition of Māori customary rights to fishing and fisheries. That, combined with the existing issues such as a lack of access and environmental degradation, stripped the ability of those few remaining Māori fishers to any form of livelihood, overnight.

Waitangi Tribunal claims lodged by Muriwhenua, Tainui, Ngāi Tahu and the New Zealand Māori Council

Muriwhenua, Tainui and Ngāi Tahu were joined by the New Zealand Māori Council and altered existing or lodged claims with the Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal that the Quota Management System was in direct conflict with Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Waitangi Tribunal's Muriwhenua decision

The Tribunal found that while the QMS held distinct advantages for the environment and was in fact an innovative system, the allocation of rights had neglected to include Māori. The system was “in fundamental conflict with the Treaty’s principles and terms”. The full, exclusive and undisturbed possession of the property right to fishing guaranteed to Māori under the Treaty had been unlawfully dished out to non-Māori.

It was a significant decision. Importantly, it established a property right in fisheries for Māori – one that was eternal – while ruling that the non-Māori commercial fishing that had been going on for years interfered with Māori fishing rights.

It was found that new agreements needed to be made between the Crown and Māori if fishing was to continue and so that the QMS could be introduced in a way that would comply with the Treaty. In the same year, the High Court upheld the tribunal’s finding that there was a Māori property right to fisheries and granted an injunction on further implementation of the QMS pending settlement of the claims.

Interim fisheries settlement

In 1989 the Maori Fisheries Act was passed and the Māori Fisheries Commission (known today as Te Ohu Kaimoana) was established.

The interim settlement saw the commission progressively receive 10 percent of all fish species that were in the QMS and approximately $10 million to hold and manage on behalf of all Māori.

The commission’s role was also to promote Māori involvement in the business and activity of fishing. Where the Crown was unable to provide the agreed 10 percent of fish species in the QMS, Māori were provided the equivalent value in further cash.

A full and final Māori Fisheries Settlement 

Māori fisheries claims were finally settled with the signing of a Deed of Settlement (commonly referred to as the Māori Fisheries Settlement or the Sealord Deal) on 23 September 1992. 

This Deed was given effect through the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992 and saw the reconstitution of the Māori Fisheries Commission into the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission, chaired by Tā Tipene O’Regan.

The settlement funded the purchase of a 50 percent stake in Sealord Group Limited (one of the largest fishing companies in New Zealand and a major owner of fisheries quota) committed to provide Māori with 20 percent of quota for all new  species entering the QMS, and undertook to make regulations to empower  self-management of non-commercial customary fishing.

The commission was charged with developing, in consultation with Māori, a scheme for the allocation and distribution of its assets to iwi.

The Settlement restored Māori property rights and established commercial enterprises, such Aotearoa Fisheries Limited (trading as Moana New Zealand), which in turn is the sole or joint shareholder of a number of New Zealand commercial fishing companies.

Through Te Ohu Kaimoana and various iwi charitable organisations, the fisheries settlement has contributed to the establishment of a sustainable development system for the delivery of economic and social benefits to all Māori. Iwi and Māori have become empowered to develop their own fishing enterprises and activities, as well as contribute to improving the health, welfare and education of communities in their own rohe now and in the future.

He Kāwai Amokura - Developing the allocation model

From 1992, the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission worked towards developing a method for allocating the fisheries settlement assets to iwi.

The process of achieving agreement took approximately 12 years as differing views were put forward by iwi groups and the wider Māori community on how the assets should be allocated. Some iwi advocated for the settlement to be distributed mostly on the basis of the length of an iwi’s coastline while others promoted a method determined by the population of each iwi. The process was further complicated by legal action taken by certain groups that sought to have the settlement allocated to groups not recognised as traditional iwi.

In December 2001, the Commission put forward allocation options for consideration by iwi. The proposals outlined in a document entitled He Anga Mua – A Path Ahead ranged from allocating the entire Settlement to iwi organisations through to holding all of the assets in a central pūtea and managing them on behalf of all iwi, with annual dividends paid.

At that time, the assets were estimated at over $500 million in value, including the 50 percent shareholding in Sealord Group Limited, the wholly owned Moana Pacific Fisheries Limited, Pacific Marine Farms Limited, Chatham Processing Limited and the quota shares held by the Commission in trust to be allocated to iwi.

The Commission embarked on an extensive round of consultation in respect of the He Anga Mua proposals. More than 200 written and oral submissions were received by the Commission and these contributed towards the development of a single method of allocation.  In August 2002, a single model for allocation was produced by the Commission and outlined in Ahu Whakamua – Report for Agreement.

Ahu Whakamua balanced a broad range of competing interests designed to ensure that Māori would be able to participate and prosper in the business and activity of fishing.  The Commission embarked on a second round of consultation to explain the single model and sought agreement from iwi to report the model, along with a draft proposed Māori Fisheries Act, to the Minister of Fisheries.

‍Ahu Whakamua sought to maximise the agreement of iwi and Māori, achieving the support of 93.1 percent of iwi, representing 96.7 percent of iwi-affiliated Māori to proceed with reporting the method for allocation to the Minister. The Commission also received indications of support from urban Māori organisations that were also actively engaged in the consultation and agreement process. In May of 2003, He Kāwai Amokura was presented by the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission to Hon Peter Hodgson, Minister for Fisheries.

WAI 953 - Ahu Moana (The Aquaculture and Marine Farming Report)

By the late 1990’s, it became clear that the legislation for planning and approving marine farms could not cope with the growth of New Zealand’s aquaculture industry.

In 1998, the government began reviewing the law and in 2001, they proposed a new regime which would more clearly restrict the places where aquaculture can be conducted.  This meant that aquaculture would only be able to take place within Aquaculture Management Areas (AMAs) defined by regional councils.

In 2002 a number of iwi organisations sought and won a declaration in the Waitangi Tribunal.

The tribunal found that these changes breach the Treaty of Waitangi. They suggested meaningful consultation between the Crown and Māori was needed to work out what should be done to ensure Treaty interests were adequately provided for. The Tribunal published its findings in a report entitled ‘Ahu Moana:  The Aquaculture and Marine Farming Report’ – Report WAI 953.

Foreshore and Seabed, the hīkoi and the birth of Te Pāti Māori

The build up to the foreshore and seabed issue began in the 1980s, when the eight iwi of Te Tau Ihu wanted to create a mussel farm in their traditional fishing grounds. They applied for a licence from the local council, only to be repeatedly rejected while four pākehā organisations were granted concessions. The iwi took it to the courts, arguing they had a customary right to the foreshore and seabed of their area. In 2003, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Māori Land Court had the jurisdiction to determine whether the foreshore and seabed could be customary land.

When the Court of Appeal suggested that the iwi of Te Tau Ihu had the right to test their property rights in court, it sparked a hysteric reaction across Aotearoa.

The Labour government’s (under then Prime Minister Helen Clark) response to the Court of Appeal ruling was panicked. In a press release three days after the decision, the government said it would legislate to “resolve the issue”, deciding two months later to bring the entire foreshore and seabed into Crown ownership in what Clark called a “win-win” decision.

In April 2004, a large hui was convened by Ngāti Kahungunu, where a decision was made to march on parliament. Reaching in from all corners of the country, it would stop at towns along the way to hold rallies. It set off from the tip of the North Island, gathering hundreds as it made its way down State Highway One. It spilled over the Auckland Harbour Bridge, thousands of people marching in an echo of the famous land march of 29 years earlier. 

One of the strongest critics of the bill within the Labour Party was Tariana Turia, a junior minister. On 30 April, Turia announced that she would vote against the legislation, and would resign (effective 17 May 2004) from the Labour Party to contest a by-election in her electorate. She was dismissed from her ministerial post by the Prime Minister the same day. Turia and her allies, believing that the time was right for an independent Māori political vehicle, established a new Māori Party. Many of Turia's supporters, such as Mana Motuhake leader Willie Jackson and Māori academic Pita Sharples, claimed that Māori who formerly supported Labour would flock to the new party en-masse. One year later, Labour was punished in the Māori seats, losing four of the seven to Te Pāti Māori. 

At least 15,000 people showed up to Parliament through the hīkoi, by official estimates, one of the largest protests to ever reach the gates of parliament.

The final tally was 66 in favour, 54 against. The Act passed.

Māori Fisheries Act 2004

On 25 September 2004 the Māori Fisheries Act received royal ascent, replacing the Māori Fisheries Act 1989; disbanding the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission and allocating its assets into a new company, Aotearoa Fisheries Limited, and its sole voting shareholder, Te Ohu Kaimoana. Importantly, the Act incorporated and gave power to He Kāwai Amokura, the allocation model.

Te Ohu Kaimoana was tasked with allocating and transferring settlement quota and other assets to iwi and pending such allocation and transfer, to hold and manage those settlement assets on iwi behalf.

For inshore quota, allocation was based on iwi coastlines (necessitating iwi agreement on their coastal boundaries on the basis of their coastlines).

In regard to deepwater quota, 75% of quota shares for stocks classified as “deepwater stocks” would be allocated according to the population of an iwi (according to the 2001 census), while 25% would be allocated according to the percentage of coastline within the quota management area that iwi claim and agree with their neighbouring iwi.

Quota in freshwater fisheries would be allocated to iwi based on an agreement reached between iwi whose rohe falls within the relevant QMA. Where no agreement can be reached, the quota shares will be allocated based on the proportion that the population of each iwi living within the quota management area bears to the combined population of those iwi living within the quota management area.

Te Ohu Kaimoana was charged with the responsibility to implement the agreements in the Deed of Settlement1992 and to provide for the development of the collective and individual interests of iwi in fisheries in a manner that is ultimately for the benefit of all Māori.

The Act also saw the establishment of Māori fisheries settlement entities:

• Inshore fishing and aquaculture company Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd (trading as Moana New Zealand) which owns 50% of deep-sea company Sealord Group Limited.
• Te Wai Māori Trust, which advances and protects Māori interests in freshwater fisheries. A key element being habitat protection, ensuring that water quality allows for abundancy in taonga species.
• Te Pūtea Whakatupu Trust (now operating as Tapuwae Roa), which works as a social impact organisation, with a focus on investment and advocacy through a tikanga-based framework.

Māori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004

The Settlement Act was given royal ascent on 21 December of 2004 and provides a full and final settlement of all Māori claims to commercial aquaculture space created since 21 September 1992.

Under the Act, the Crown is responsible for delivering the settlement. They created the Māori Commercial Aquaculture Settlement Trust (Takutai Trust) to carry out this work. The corporate trustee of Takutai Trust is Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Limited (Te Ohu Kaimoana).

Full and final settlement of Crown's pre-commencement space

On Wednesday 6 May 2009, iwi representatives and Ministers signed a Deed of Settlement satisfying the Crown’s pre-commencement space obligations for Te Waipounamu and Hauraki at Te Papa National Museum marae.

It was a one-off cash payment of $97 million that covered most New Zealand’s aquaculture development areas including the Hauraki Gulf, Marlborough Sounds, Tasman Bay and remaining parts of the South Island.

“The settlement makes amends for the impacts of establishing marine farms without regard to the right of the iwi whose rohe moana was being used.” – Hon John Key.

Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011

The Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011 replaced the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, which was introduced by the Fifth Labour Government. 

Māori Party co-leader Dame Tariana Turia, who left Labour and established the Māori Party largely as a response to the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, began the third reading of the Bill in the House of Representatives on 24 March 2011.

In expressing the support of the Māori Party, she noted, "This bill is another step in our collective pursuit of Treaty injustice. This bill was never just about the Māori Party; it started with the leadership of the eight iwi who took an application to the Māori Land Court at the top of the South Island", referring to the Ngati Apa case.

On 24 March 2011, the bill was passedat third reading by a vote of 63 to 56. It received royal assent on 31 March andcame into force on 1 April.

‍

Review of the Māori fisheries entities

The Māori Fisheries Act 2004 provided that before the end of the 11th year there would be an independent statutory review of the Act’s governance arrangements, ownership and superstructure, whereby the collective and individual interests of iwi in fisheries, fishing and fisheries related activities would be promoted in a manner which was to be, ultimately, for the benefit of all Māori.

Wellington barrister, Tim Castle, was appointed by Māori decision makers to undertake this review.

The independent review was finalised in March 2015. It recommended significant changes to the governance structures of the entities and simplified processes for trading assets. The recommendations were influenced by the independent reviewer’s view that iwi should be closer to the entities and have a greater degree of rangatiratanga over their assets.

In accordance with the Act, Te Ohu Kaimoana undertook extensive engagement with iwi. They established two Iwi Working Groups to develop a set of proposals from the Review, consulted widely with iwi on the proposed changes, and held two Special General Meetings and two additional Te Ohu Kaimoana Hui-a-Tau / Annual General Iwi Meetings to pass resolutions on the recommendations and to amend the Māori Fisheries Act 2004.

Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary proposal

In 2015, then Prime Minister of New Zealand, Rt Hon John Key announced the proposed creation of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary, which equates to 15 per cent of New Zealand's Exclusive Economic Zone. Twice the size of our land mass, and 50 times the size of our largest national park. It is 35 times larger than the combined area of New Zealand's existing marine reserves. 

The Crown failed to consult iwi on the proposal which would have extinguished the rights of iwi guaranteed in the 1992 Fisheries Deed of Settlement and the Māori Fisheries Act 2004 through the prohibition of any commercial activity for 20 years in 620,000km2 of the EEZ surrounding the Kermadec Island group, which coincides with Fisheries Management Area 10.

Te Ohu Kaimoana injuncted the Crown due to its breach of the fisheries settlement, and worked with iwi and the Crown over the next eight years in order to seek a resolution to the issue.

Iwi vote to reject the Crown’s Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary proposal in favour of an indigenous approach

At a historic Special General Meeting of Te Ohu Kaimoana in June of 2023, iwi leaders gathered and voted to reject the Crown’s proposal to establish the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary. Of the 45 representative iwi organisations present at the general meeting, 42 iwi organisations voted against, one voted in support and two abstained to the Crown’s proposal.

Then Chair of Te Ohu Kaimoana, Rangimarie Hunia stated “If we continue conversations under this current framework imposed upon us by the Crown, we do not believe this creates the opportunity for a meaningful outcome for iwi or the Crown. There must be a conversation held that is based upon mana, tikanga and kawa before we can progress, and that conversation must be led by iwi. Iwi have voted clearly and strongly against the Crown’s proposal, and have agreed to a further hui together to discuss an indigenous led approach to marine management”.

Government scraps long contested Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill

In March 2024, the Government announced its decision to scrap the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill, nearly a decade after the announcement was made to establish the marine reserve.

Ocean and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones said in a statement Cabinet had decided to pull the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill from Parliament’s order paper, stopping further progress on establishing the sanctuary.

He argued the current marine reserve around the Kermadec Islands, which extended 12 nautical miles, was “ample” to preserve the environment and marine life.

“Making 15 per cent of New Zealand’s Exclusive Economic Zone a no-go area for Kiwis making their living from the sea, including iwi who received the Kermadecs fishing quota in a 1992 Treaty of Waitangi settlement, makes absolutely no sense,” Jones said.

Environment Minister Penny Simmonds claimed the commercial activities occurring around the islands posed “limited risk to its marine environment” thanks to the current reserve and “stringent regulations” in place.

“I am confident that the Kermadec Islands, which already have in place a protected marine environment, will continue to flourish without the further expansion of the reserve,” Simmonds said.

Māori Fisheries Amendment Act 2024

On Tuesday 23 July, Parliament concluded its third reading of the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill, which gained royal ascent as the Māori Fisheries Amendment Act 2024 on Friday 26 July.

The intent of the Act is to reduce costs improve efficiency, move iwi towards greater rangatiratanga over their assets and increase the fisheries settlement entities’ ability to provide settlement assets benefits to all Māori.

The recommendations from the 2015 Tim Castle review, as well the proposals developed by the two iwi working groups established to address the review, resulted in 18 resolutions from iwi requiring changes to the Māori Fisheries Act.

Of those 18 resolutions, 14 were developed and voted for by iwi, and four additional technical proposals were developed by Te Ohu Kaimoana and consulted on with iwi.