Key Takeaways:
- Jonathan Moon, a customary permit issuer, was found to have been issuing permits for areas outside of his authorized region, including the Matapōuri area.
- Moon was caught with a large quantity of undersized pāua at Woolleys Bay, an area outside of his designated rohe.
- The court found that Moon had been provided with training and boundary disclosure by MPI, but had chosen to ignore these boundaries and issue permits as he saw fit.
- Moon’s actions were found to be in contradiction to tikanga principles and the very nature of customary rights.
- A prohibition order was issued against Moon for three years, preventing him from issuing permits or engaging in any fishing activity associated with taking fish, aquatic life, seaweed, or shellfish.
Introduction to the Case
The hearing took place on Wednesday, during which the court heard Jonathan Moon’s history as a customary permit issuer, which dated back to 2013 when he was formally registered by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). As a tangata kaitiaki or permit issuer, Moon was elected by kaumātua from local hapū or marae to authorize and manage customary activities, such as taking large amounts of seafood for tangi or celebrations. However, it was found that Moon had been issuing permits for areas outside of his authorized region, including the Matapōuri area, without the permission of local hapū.
Moon’s Defense
Moon argued that his understanding of the rohe for his permit was the entire east and west coast, and that he had been trained by MPI to act as he did. He claimed that he was only provided with the formal boundary disclosure a few weeks prior to the hearing, and that MPI’s own process had created the situation. Moon also stated that he was gathering for "Matariki sustenance" when he was caught at Woolleys Bay, and that this fell under customary tikanga. However, he was unable to provide a clear answer when asked how tikanga permitted him to take kai from Woolleys Bay without permission from the local hapū.
The Prosecution’s Case
MPI lawyer Paddy Wood argued that Moon had been provided with all the details of his rohe from the time he was registered and had been significantly trained by the organization. Wood stated that the test for being a permit issuer was that they must be tangata whenua to the area, which Moon was not. Ngātiwai leader Kris MacDonald provided a detailed affidavit that specified the customary rights along the Tūtūkākā coast, which contradicted Moon’s interpretation of his authority. Wood pointed out that MacDonald’s affidavit referenced land claims, geographical features, and a discerned understanding of the meaning of certain names in the area, which were critical factors in assessing whether Moon exercised customary rights in the area.
The Court’s Decision
Judge Davey agreed with MPI and MacDonald’s evidence and issued a prohibition order against Moon for three years. This order prevents Moon from issuing any permits or engaging in any fishing activity associated with taking fish, aquatic life, seaweed, or shellfish. Judge Davey stated that Moon’s actions had undermined the very nature of tikanga and that he had failed to provide a clear answer to how he had authority to take kai from Woolleys Bay. The court’s decision was seen as a victory for the local hapū, who had been working to protect their coast and its resources.
Reaction from the Community
Kris MacDonald, a kaitiaki for the Matapōuri area, stated that their kaitiaki constantly monitor the coast’s kai moana resource, which is thin. MacDonald expressed frustration that Moon had been issuing permits without any relationship with the local hapū, and that this had damaged the trust between the community and customary permit issuers. Fisheries New Zealand district manager for Northland, Swazi Lal, stated that Moon was a recidivist offender who had been convicted twice since 2014, and that the rules are in place to protect shared fishery resources and ensure they are sustainable into the future. The community is hopeful that the court’s decision will help to prevent similar incidents in the future and protect the coast’s resources for generations to come.
