Iwi seeks ruling on Lake Taupo¯ levy

The tribe that owns Lake Taupo¯ is taking court action to ensure it can charge all commercial operators that use the lake.

Central North Island iwi Tu¯ wharetoa was confirmed as owner of the lake bed, the space occupied by the water and the airspace above the lake by the Government in 1992 and in modifications to the deed in 2007.

It does not own the water but Tu¯wharetoa Ma¯ori Trust Board chief executive Topia Rameka said the iwi does have the right to charge commercial operators for a licence to operate on the water.

About 40 businesses already pay for a licence to operate on the lake and have individual agreements with Tu¯ wharetoa.

‘‘However, there are approximately a further 50 businesses that are operating on Taupo¯ waters without an appropriate licence in place,’’ Rameka said.

The trust is seeking a declaratory judgment from the High Court that would effectively force those not paying for a licence to do so.

The area of ownership is known as ‘‘Taupo¯ Waters’’ and refers to the beds and space occupied by the water of Lake Taupo¯, the tributaries flowing into Lake Taupo¯ and the Waikato River from the outlet of Lake Taupo¯ to the Rock of Tia (including Huka Falls).

In 2007, then Ma¯ ori Affairs Minister Parekura Horomia said changes to the deed gave Tu¯ wharetoa the right to charge fees. ‘‘Under the agreement, the trust board’s rights on a number of fronts have been clarified, including in regard to commercial tourism operators, where the board will have the ability to charge fees similar to those charged by DOC on Crown land,’’ he said.

Recreational users of Lake Taupo¯ can use the lake for free.

Rameka said the amount the iwi was charging commercial operators was confidential, but they were effectively commercial leases.

A group of operators called Taupo¯ Waters Collective was formed in March this year to represent the interests of commercial businesses operating on or above the lake.

Collective chairman Marty Staines said it was inappropriate to comment while the matter was before the court. ‘‘They’re clarifying the deed, then we will go from that point there.’’

One operator, who did not want to be named before the court made its judgment, said he was not impressed by the charge, which he believed was about 7 per cent of revenue. The operator wasn’t opposed to paying something.

‘‘But it’s got to be reasonable and it’s got to be based on a sensible number – not of your whole income.’’