|
Kevin Burke spoke at the Community Board meeting held Saturday 7th June 03 on Great Barrier Island. Kevin is the editor of the Barrier Bulletin, a local publication that is distributed around the Island.
Mr Chairman, Board Members, Ladies and Gentlemen,
There are plenty of people present who know far more about marine matters, fish and fishing than I, so I will stick to one point, integrity.
The glossy brochure, which has been produced by DoC, has been produced for one reason only. To inform the general public. This is the information that the public have been given by DoC to influence them in making decisions when replying to the questionnaire which accompanied it.
We all make mistakes. As it happens, this brochure at 16 pages of A4 is exactly the same size as one issue of the Barrier Bulletin. We, at the Bulletin, have typographical errors and sometimes worse, but the Bulletin is produced fortnightly, and is largely put together over the last 4 days of the fortnight by 3, sometimes 2 part-timers.
This brochure has taken DoC, with the comparatively huge resources available to them, over a year to produce, and so far as I have noticed, there is not a single typographical error, so it would seem to have been thoroughly vetted. There are however glaring errors of fact, and those that I know about I would like to share with you.
Page 3, Headline; “ A Decade of Discussions.”
If there has been a decade of discussions, they have been around a coffee urn in a DoC office somewhere. Public discussions have not been held since 1994/95, until this round currently underway.
There has not been a decade of discussions.
Page 3, beneath that headline; “ Keen to establish a marine reserve somewhere around the island, DoC circulated a public discussion paper and questionnaire in February 1991. Over 250 people, mainly Islanders sent in their comments.”
An extract from the replies to the 1991 questionnaire published by DoC as Appendix 4 to the ‘Draft Application for the Rakitu (Great Barrier Island) Marine Reserve’ (July 1994) is attached. This shows 256 submissions received, 139 from greater Auckland, 48 from Great Barrier Island, the rest from other Auckland areas, the rest of New Zealand, and a few from overseas.
Are we to believe that “ 250 people, mainly Islanders” is an ok piece of information to base decisions on when in fact the truth is that less than 19% of the respondents were Islanders? Are we to believe that this figure in the glossy was some sort of an innocent mistake, when the original information is given not only in narrative, but also in bar graph form, and when DoC have had over 12 months to ensure they are not misleading the New Zealand public.
Page 13. Headline “Whangapoua Estuary”
“Conservation land surrounds the estuary”
To the east, the estuary is bounded by privately owned land. (Hale, Williams, Burke). To the north, part of the sand spit is only wide enough to be never more than the Queen’s chain. On the Southern side is a mix of Endt land, ACC (Okiwi Airport area), and DoC land. To the west is part Ngati Wai and part DoC. DoC land does NOT surround the estuary by any stretch of the imagination, so why say so? The above are not random errors; they each influence the uninformed toward the DoC way of thinking.
There are other instances of “spin” being applied, but those just mentioned can be nothing but deliberate misinformation.
So, what are we to make of those parts of the glossy that we are unable to verify? Why should we believe stories of kelp and coral forests at depths only attainable with underwater camera or diving bell? Is the child on the front cover mesmerised by cockle tracks or has someone been dragging a stick around? Is the cray on the back cover in the proposed reserve area or in a glass tank at a restaurant somewhere? Is there any truth in this glossy at all?
The glossy is the core of the application. There have been thousands distributed. The number of submissions from Barrier residents will be insignificant when compared with those from off island. Most of the off island submitters will be influenced by the misinformation contained in the glossy.
I said at the beginning, that this was about integrity. Not DoC’s, but the Community Board’s, both as a board, and as individuals. The misinformation mentioned above cannot be denied. Regardless of other considerations, the board will be letting itself, and Great Barrier Island down, if it assists this proposal to any degree of success, based as it is on deception. The Department has let itself and New Zealand down by deliberately setting out to deceive the New Zealand Public. A legal challenge would probably make the questionnaire results null and void.
Recommendation
I request that the Board consider recommending to Auckland City and the Department of Conservation that this proposal be withdrawn in its entirety because of gross inaccuracies in the supporting information.
Thank you
Kevin Burke
Barrier Bulletin - Editor
|
