A man has been handed a three-year ban on collecting seafood, after being caught extending his customary authority to issue permits well beyond its boundaries for the past 10 years.
Jonathan Moon, 47, appeared in the Whangārei District Court, as the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) pressed its case to strip him of the right to take seafood in any form.
He had been found guilty in a judge-alone trial in July of obstructing fisheries officers and possession of an underwater breathing apparatus, namely a scuba tank.
Judge Peter Davey fined Moon $1000 but when MPI sought a prohibition order, a formal hearing was set down.
The hearing took place on Wednesday, with the court hearing Moon’s history dated back to 2013, when he was formally registered by MPI as a customary permit issuer.
A tangata kaitiaki or permit issuer, under the ministry, is elected by kaumātua from local hapū or marae to authorise and manage customary activities, such as taking large amounts of seafood for tangi or celebrations.
Moon had been nominated as tangata kaitiaki by his kaumātua, following a hui at Te Aranga Marae in Hastings.
The recognised rohe (area) for the permit was Te Tai Rāwhiti and Te Tai Hauāuru, commonly known as the Gisborne and Taranaki West Coast area.
Moon said he underwent formal MPI training once accepted and was issued a customary permit booklet, but over the past 10 years, he was fouind to have issued permits for a Kaikohe marae and taking from the Matapōuri areas, when he was not authorised to by locals.
Following a successful prosecution by MPI in 2017, Moon wrote a letter to local hapū Te Whānau ā Rangiwhakaahua and Matapōuri Marae, advising he acknowledged they held mana moana and would abide by processes in future.
On 28 July, 2023, he and another person surfaced at Woolleys Bay, equipped with scuba gear and a catch bag. Moon refused to tell MPI what was in the bag when asked.
Judge Davey was satisfied from the evidence presented in court that Moon had a large quantity of undersized pāua, which he had no authority to take.
Self-represented, Moon told the court his understanding of the rohe for his permit was the entire east and west coast.
“Those rohe were Te Tai Rāwhiti and Te Tai Hauāuru,” he argued. “These were not invented by me, they were set by kaumātua consistent with tikanga.
“At no stage from 2013 did MPI reject or challenge these rohe.”
He claimed he was only provided the formal boundary disclosure a few weeks ago.
“If MPI now says my authority was wrong, then their own process created the situation, not me,” Moon said. “I acted exactly as I was trained to act.”
Judge Davey questioned why he was in Woolleys Bay, when it was nowhere near the designated rohe.
Judge Davey referred to Moon’s 2017 letter acknowledging he would not issue any more permits from Roimata in the north to Mangawhai.
Moon responded by saying the letter was written as an act of reconciliation, and to restore balance and demonstrate cultural respect consistent with tikanga principles.
“It was not an admission of wrongdoing, your honour.”
Moon went on to say that the day he was at Woolleys Bay, he was gathering for “Matariki sustenance”, which falls under what he believed to be customary tikanga.
“What I am asking you is, how can you say tikanga permitted you to take kai from Woolleys Bay without any permission from the local hapū?” Judge Davey asked.
Moon could not provide a clear answer.
‘They hold the fires that burn’
MPI lawyer Paddy Wood said Moon was provided with all the details of his rohe from the time he was registered and was significantly trained by the organisation.
Wood said the test for being a permit issuer was they must be tangata whenua to the area, which Moon was not.
“He relies on the jurisdiction that he suggests MPI gave him, but also he claims an overarching ability under tikanga to issue permits… basically as he sees fit, when he sees fit and that undermines the very nature of tikanga.”
Ngātiwai leader Kris MacDonald provided a detailed affidavit that specified the customary rights along the Tūtūkākā coast.
Wood said there was a stark difference in MacDonald and Moon’s interpretations.
“Moon’s interpretation is generalised,” he said. “MacDonald references land claims, geographical features, a discerned understanding of the meaning of certain names in the area, reference to urupā, whānau, the kāinga.
“They hold the fires that burn in the area, these are very critical factors in assessing whether Moon exercised customary rights in the area.”
Wood pointed out MacDonald’s detail to rāhui, which could only be implemented by them.
‘Not hapū-specific authority’
Moon said the affidavit did not override his issuing authority.
“I acted under the Crown authority, not hapū-specific authority and not under the kai moana regulations. The affidavit cannot impose a regional boundary system MPI itself did not use when appointing me.”
Judge Davey agreed with MPI and MacDonald’s evidence, and issued a prohibition order against Moon for three years.
“Meaning, if there is any existing authority for Moon to issue any permits, then that effectively is being forfeited,” Judge Davey said.
Moon is also not to engage in any fishing activity associated with taking fish, aquatic life, seaweed or shellfish.
MacDonald told NZME their kaitiaki constantly monitored the coast’s kai moana resource, which he said was thin.
“We’re pretty aware of where our pāua are, and looking after them and making sure we don’t take, if they get a little bit thin or a little bit small.
“We feel very slighted when he seems to, without any relationship with us, believe he can just help himself through permits he’s getting issued out of his marae in Kaikohe.”
MacDonald said the registered permit issuers for the Matapōuri area were Ngātiwai Trust Board staff Aperahama Kerepeti Edwards and Tania Macpherson.
MacDonald said they had strong cultural and customary monitoring and were committed to protecting their coast.
“For customary purposes, it does get hammered over summer, so go easy.”
Fisheries New Zealand district manager for Northland, Swazi Lal told NZME Moon was a recidivist offender, who had been convicted twice since 2014.
“The rules are there for a reason – to protect our shared fishery resources and ensure they’re sustainable into the future.”
,
