Great Barrier Marine Reserve Application

Submission by NZRFC

30 September 2004

Director General of Conservation

C/o Auckland Conservator

Private Bag 68-908

Newton

AUCKLAND

SUBMISSION ON THE AOTEA (GREAT BARRIER) Marine Reserve Application

Date September 30 2004

The Council thanks you the Director-General of Conservation for this opportunity to present our submission to you on the Aotea (Great Barrier) Marine Reserve Application.

We wish to appear before any committee DOC may convene to speak to our submission.

We must advise that our submission is not in support of the application for the reasons out lined below and would request a full public explanation from you if you were to decide to proceed with this application against the majority of public, Industry and Iwi opinion. We would seek this information and full OIA information on all communications and submissions to this application as a basis for any judicial review if this option was so required.

THE COUNCIL AND ITS REPRESENTATION:

The New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council represents national and regional associations, clubs, corporate and individual members. Whilst a number of these have their own policies and will make submissions to you we believe they will be consistent with this submission lodged by the overall body.

The national organisations represented are N.Z. Angling & Casting Association, N.Z. Big Game Fishing Council, N.Z. Trailer Boat Federation, N.Z. Marine Transport Association, N.Z. Sports Industry Association and N.Z. Underwater Association. The regional associations cover the whole country and are in Northland, Auckland, Bay of Plenty/Waikato, Taranaki, Wellington, Tasman Bay, and Otago. The Council also has some Maori groups as members with Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu as a regional association. We also maintain a close contact with many of the tribes affiliated to Te Tai Tokerau in the north. Some of our larger member clubs include the members of the Bucklands Beach Yacht Club (3500), Mercury Bay Ocean Sports Fishing Club (2200), Whakatane Sports Fishing Club (2500) and Auckland's Outboard Boating Club (1680).

The membership represented both directly and indirectly is in the vicinity of 300,000 recreational and sustenance fishers. In addition by default we represent the public interest in the fishery and those fishers who are non-members. We say by default because we are the only constituted representative body that has been recognised by Government and the Courts of doing so.

It further needs to be noted that most "Maori" fishers exercise rights under the amateur fishing regulations (as distinct from Customary Regulations) and therefore our comments cover their rights of access also.

Over 1,000,000 New Zealanders fish for sport or sustenance. The 1996 research to provide estimates of Recreational and Sustenance Harvest Estimates found that there are approx 1.35 million recreational and sustenance fishers in New Zealand and therefore we effectively, through our associated member groups, represent that number.

The Council has been recognised in two court cases as representing the recreational fishers of New Zealand. The Council was attached to these cases without its prior knowledge and the court papers show it was ordered "to represent the recreational fishing public of New Zealand".

The Council has a Board of elected officers and members. The Council consults with its members and the public using various means. These include newsletters, its web site and various press releases. In addition it consults through the various fishing media and meetings it holds and receives input through those forum. At our Conference in July this year our members discussed the marine reserve proposal. As a result they confirmed a position of "Free and Open Access for all New Zealanders".

This submission has been prepared and presented after consultation with the residents of Great Barrier Island, our members and affiliates from the wider Auckland region including Maori and individual board members.

We are aware that some of our National Members and Regional Members are submitting their own submissions and we support their submissions unless they are obviously different in the end result produced. We respect but cannot support any submission submitted by our affiliate NZ Underwater and they are aware and respect the reasons why.

We support the submission from the Seafood Industry Council.

OPPOSITION SUBMISSION:

Council notes that the application has been made under the Marine Reserves Act 1971. The criteria for the creation of a reserve under that Act is set out in Section 3 (1) that reads.

"It is hereby declared that the provisions of this Act shall have effect for the purpose of preserving, as marine reserves for the scientific study of marine life, areas of New Zealand that contain underwater scenery, natural features, or marine life, of such distinctive quality, or so typical, or beautiful, or unique, that their continued preservation is in the national interest."

Council has a policy of supporting marine reserve applications that meet the criteria of the Act. To achieve such support an application needs to be to preserve the area for the scientific study of marine life. The application must prove the area contains underwater scenery, natural features, or marine life, of such distinctive quality, or so typical, or beautiful, or unique, that their continued preservation is in the national interest." The application must show how the continued preservation is in the national interest

We consider that to do so the application must identify the marine life etc that is at risk and needs protection. It must contain a risk assessment and identify other methods of protection that are available. It must assess why those other methods are not acceptable. We consider that Marine Reserves need to be the final overall protection tool that needs to be used where all other tools available are in appropriate. For the record we note no mention in this Act of protection of marine biodiversity pers se although we accept that such protection comes as a result of protection by marine reserve status. We note no mention in the application of the scientific study requirement or to be carried out. We consider that the application does not meet the criteria laid down by the 1971 Act and must therefore fail.  

We further point out the following issues:

There are Significant Safety Issues. The Safety of boat operators, divers and other users in the inshore areas of the proposed marine reserve is at serious risk.

This is an area subject to rapid weather and sea condition changes most unlike any of the Marine Reserves in the Hauraki Gulf . It is to be expected that in the event that a marine reserve is created in this area, it will attract boaties, divers and other users unused to these volatile conditions, and with equipment, while satisfactory for areas such as Goat Island, less than adequate for this area.

There is no search and rescue VHF radio coverage over the inshore waters due to "shadow" from hills. This consequently means that boaties are unable to communicate directly with the Coastguard in the event of an incident. The nearest search and rescue base is at Tryphena, a good hour's travelling in good conditions and beyond reach in rough conditions when the search and rescue vessel would be unable to round the northern and southern extremities of the island.

Diving in particular is an inherently dangerous recreation, as can be demonstrated by the number of fatalities this past twelve months, with accident victims requiring immediate attention. The remoteness and exposure to weather of the proposed Marine Reserve site compound these risks.

Does   expect the local residents to be Search and Rescue by default?

Additionally, many boaties will rather skirt the perimeter of the Proposed Marine Reserve more than 12 miles off the coast than risk seizure of boat, equipment etc. under the Marine reserve Act 1971 section 18 (d). This is the section of the Act which states in part that every ranger may seize all nets, traps, firearms, ammunition, explosives, engines, instruments, appliances, equipment, or any devices . . .   that he reasonably believes are being used or intended to be so used or have been used. As stated previously, the area is subject to extremely changeable sea conditions. This is an inherently unsafe situation!

Due process not followed with Application for Marine Reserve.

The Dept of Conservation, pre-released information regarding Application to NZ Forest and Bird many days prior 2 nd August release date. Subsequently, NZ Forest and Bird pre-released this information to a significant portion of their membership days prior to the official 2 nd August release date.

No mention of this pre-release to NZ Forest and Bird was noted in the Appendix 4 of the Application document.

This Application must be withdrawn and an inquiry conducted with the appropriate disciplinary action taken in the event that wrong doing is exposed.

Economic and Social Implications not addressed in Application.

The Aotea (Great Barrier) Marine Reserve Application document does not address the Economic and Social Implications for the Great Barrier Island community at large.

The Section 5 of the Application (Economic, Social & Cultural Implications for Tangata Whenua, Current Users & Other Groups) does not even make mention of the wider Great Barrier Island community or the implications of the Proposed Marine Reserve on them. This is despite the recommendations of the document, "Social impacts of marine reserves in New Zealand", commissioned by DoC.

No Social and/or Economic Study has been conducted by the Dept of Conservation into the potential effects of the proposed marine reserve.

The research document "Social impacts of marine reserves in New Zealand" (Taylor and Buckenham, 2003) from the funded Science for Conservation series, recommends that such assessments be carried out.

The department did not consult the owners and/or managers of businesses catering for visitors/tourists to the island on any possible effects. A Great Barrier Island employee also confirmed, by e-mail, that a social and economic impact study had not been undertaken. A copy of the e-mail is available on request.

The positive effects to the economy predicted by many of the supporters of the proposal have not eventuated at a similarly remote Marine Reserve on Banks Peninsula.   This Pohatu Marine Reserve has small numbers of direct visitors and has had minimal generation of employment despite being established in 1999. (Taylor and Buckenham, 2003).

In the case of the Proposed Great Barrier Island Marine Reserve, many visitors come solely to the island in the winter off-season to fish in the proposed area. The loss of even a small proportion of these people will have a detrimental impact on both local businesses and ferry operator alike.

The Great Barrier Islander's rely heavily on the vehicular ferry service now operated by KI Sealink of Australia (formerly Subritzky's) and the freight only service operated by Stella Shipping.

The viability of the ferry services to the island, especially in the winter, could be affected by any downturn in recreational fisher numbers. Recent media articles have pointed to the fact that the Subritsky operations were in financial trouble at the time of the recent sale to the Australian company. Additionally, the Stella Shipping vessel has also been advertised for sale for some time now. This is compounded by the fact that runs it's own private shipping service enabling to avoid contributing to the Island's infrastructure.

Should it prove that recreational fishers numbers are reduced dramatically with the establishment of a marine reserve, then this could be the nail in the coffin for the commercial services with the subsequent isolation and huge increases in cost of freight and provisions to Great Barrier Islander's.

The results of an unofficial survey of 10 Subritsky winter sailings from 2003 and 2004 showed that on five occasions, land based recreational fishers vehicles made up 50 percent or more of vehicle numbers. The other five had between 20 and 49 percent land based recreational fishers vehicles.

The Dept of Conservation have little or no interest in preserving or improving the Island's Economy.

contributes very little to the local economy or infrastructure despite administering over 65 percent of the area of Great Barrier Island. have their own large vessel and operate their own shipping service bringing all diesel fuel and freight for their own use and occasionally some private provisions for staff. does not pay rates to Auckland City. Despite this, they charge for the use of their campgrounds.

These facts clearly demonstrate that has no interest at all in preserving the Island's economy and welfare of it's residents.   No Marine Reserve can proceed under these circumstances at all.

The hardships endured by Great Barrier Island residents are likely to increase with the proposed marine reserve.

Are those proposing this marine reserve aware of the hardships endured by those on this island? Are they aware that there is no reticulated power on the island and that everyone relies on power sources such as generators, and for those with a few more dollars, solar and wind power?

Some residents use this proposed marine reserve area for fishing to provide their families with fresh fish to put on the table. This, more especially, when the local shops run out of staples such as bread, milk and eggs when the prevailing weather prevents the ferry from running. Some residents don't even have freezers due to the unreliable generators and rely heavily on fish they catch for food. Fresh fish cannot be purchased on the Island.

Many residents work at two or more jobs to earn sufficient to survive. Despite this the Island's population is still decreasing. The proposed marine reserve is likely to increase these hardships.

The Dept of Conservation is yet to prove it is competently able to manage the terrestrial environment on the Island. The foray into the marine environment in the area must not proceed until they have proven their ability in the terrestrial environment on the Island.

is unable to manage pests and weeds on the estate on the Island. There has been an explosion of rabbit numbers on the Island, plainly obvious to residents and visitors alike, due to a flawed pest control policy of DoC. Weeds such as gorse are common and increasing. What guarantee is there that this poor management is not flowing on to affect any of the many rare and endangered plants and animals on Great Barrier Island? Once again not meeting Biodiversity Strategy 2000 objectives!

With such a woeful lack of management skills in the terrestrial environment, has proven itself unsuitable for managing a Marine Reserve in the area.

The Auckland Conservancy already administers Marine Reserves covering an estimated more than 25 percent of their Marine Environment .

The NZ Biodiversity Strategy 2000 priority action 3.6 b) sets a target of 10 percent of New Zealand's marine environment by 2010 in a network of marine protected areas. (not just marine reserves)

The Auckland Conservancy has an estimated more than 25 percent of their marine area in Marine Reserves alone, even before considering any of the other legitimate marine protection and management tools.   The Auckland Conservancy is carrying an undue burden in proportion to other Conservancies, with announcements yet to be made on classification of gear restriction and no fishing areas already in place.

There is no announcement to date on whether Cableways such as the huge Telecom Cableway through the Hauraki Gulf are to be classified as Marine Protected Areas. This is despite discussions many months ago between Ministry of Fisheries and Dept of Conservation. Should it be that this area is to be classified as a Marine Protected Area, then the percentage of Marine Protected Area in the Auckland Conservancy's Marine Area will be grossly disproportionate to other areas and far in excess of the 10 percent target.

The 25 year time frame before review is far too long. Does not permit interim adjustments in the event of serious negative consequences to Great Barrier Island economy.

Should there be any serious negative effects to the local economy, they need to be able corrected rapidly. This marine reserve proposal is too inflexible and could lead to serious economic problems in what is a very fragile economy. This lengthy review period simply confirms that staff in the Auckland Conservancy are completely out of touch with the wants and needs of the Great Barrier Island residents and regular visitors. To date we have never seen a reversal   or review of a marine reserve location.

have apparently failed to implement many actions from the NZ Biodiversity Strategy 2000.

Objective 3.6 action a) - Have failed to advise Great Barrier Island residents and other stakeholders of any other valid marine protection mechanisms apart from Marine Reserves. No mention at all of, for example, Mataitai.

Objective 3.6 action d) - Have failed totally to encourage individual and community incentives as required under this action.

Objective 3.1 action d) - Have apparently failed to identify and assess major threats to the marine environment. Water turbidity is one threat recognised by none other than Dr Bill Ballantine. This threat is identified in your Application where it states "However, turbid water occasionally flows into this area from the Hauraki Gulf (Irving and Jeffs, 1993). The studies conducted in the area were, we believe, only conducted during February when the weather and consequently the sea conditions are settled. The renowned marine scientist, Dr Bill Ballantine, stated in his Marine Reserves Presentation at Orewa earlier this year that turbid water reducing light levels was highly suspected as causing kelp die-off. It is also recognised that this turbidity is increasing and poses an increasing threat to biodiversity in the proposed marine reserve area.

What has been done to identify the cause of this turbidity, and what has, or is being done, to reduce this threat to the marine environment as a whole and in particular the area of the Proposed Marine reserve?

This marine reserve application must be withdrawn and the cause of this increasing threat to all aspects of Marine Reserves Act 1971 section 3(1) identified and reduced.

Charter operators concerns ignored.

Additionally, earlier this year, charter operators reported that no fish were to be found at the Needles at the northern end of the Proposed Marine Reserve due to an Algal bloom. Fish are generally able to swim away from Algal blooms, but what effect has it on marine life unable to escape? Was this the same event observed by a snorkeller at Te Arai Pt and reported to the Auckland Conservancy Office and subsequently confirmed by the Auckland Office to have also affected the Goat Island Marine Reserve. Important key marine life such as ecklonia kelp was observed to disintegrate to the touch and kina were absent except for small numbers around low water mark.

Such an event greatly reduces the Biodiversity of the areas it effects. Despite this, Auckland Office has confirmed since, that although the organism that caused the event has been identified, they (DoC) are not working to find the root cause of the bloom. Surely this must be a priority under action point 3.4 d of the Biodiversity Strategy 2000 Document.

The devastating effect algal blooms have on biodiversity can be gauged by the small algal bloom that affected the inshore areas from Orewa to Kawau island in early 2003, when thousands of dead, mainly reef fish, were cast up onto the beaches in the area. Whatever effects it had on other marine organisms going unseen.

This Application for the Marine Reserve at Great Barrier Island should be withdrawn and the real reasons for the Algal bloom periodically affecting the northern parts of the area of the proposed marine reserve, identified and corrected.

Failure to meet the criteria for interventions under the Biodiversity Strategy 2000.

Under the NZ Biodiversity Strategy 2000, Annex One, interventions (such as this proposed marine reserve) should meet a number of criteria including the following:

• provide a positive net benefit, that is, the benefits exceed costs.
• be effective including cost effective.
• be transparent and well targeted.
• be acceptable to stakeholder.

This proposed marine reserve fails to meet these criteria.

No attempt being made by to manage run-off from administered land on Great Barrier Island into the marine environment!

The Department of Conservation must follow the principles of the Biodiversity Strategy 2000 and must also be seen to be taking the lead in conservation matters.

The Ministry for the Environment published a comprehensive document "Managing Waterways on Farms" in May 2001 with a peer review by a staff member.

The Harataonga Campground is a prime example of how NOT to manage waterways. The waterways within the campground have NO riparian plantings nor are they fenced off from stock. Until early this year there were even cattle roaming through the waterways and bog areas in the campground.

This waterway directs sediment-laden water directly into the proposed marine reserve area in times of heavy rain. Marine scientists including the renowned Dr Bill Ballintine recognise that sediment is a major threat to marine biodiversity as it increases the turbidity of water leading to the reduction in range of important species such as ecklonia kelp as well as the smothering of many others. The Minister for Conservation, the Hon Chris Carter MP, in his reply to the Outdoor Recreation Marine Committee dated 4 th Aug 2004, refers to sedimentation as one of a number of, quote "pressing risks to the marine environment".

Department of Conservation on Great Barrier Island has apparently failed in it's duties to implement any part of this comprehensive document, which provides guidelines for improving the biodiversity of freshwater habitats as well as the obvious flow-on effects to the marine environment.

This Marine Reserve Application must be withdrawn until all the required actions of the Managing Waterways on Farms document have been implemented on all areas draining into or adjacent to the proposed marine reserve area.

may, by not implementing the above, commit an offence under the Marine reserves Act 1971 section 19 (d). This section states that every person commits an offence who knowingly; discharges or causes to be discharged, directly or indirectly, any toxic or polluting substance of any kind injurious to plant or animal life; into a marine reserve.

This situation at Harataonga (Overton's Beach) does just that!

The pollutant is sediment discharged by the stream at Overton's Beach in times of flooding. Sediment is recognised by both Hon Chris Carter and Dr Bill Ballantine as a threat to marine organisms and biodiversity.

does not have a mandate from the public at large to establish this marine reserve!

The Aotea Marine Reserve Application states that there is 86 percent support for the establishment of Marine Reserves. The Aotea Marine Reserve Application also states that only 24 percent of submissions were supportive in principle of the creation of a Marine reserve on the North Eastern coast of Great Barrier Island.

The Department of Conservation must withdraw this Application in view of the lack of support demonstrated by the extremely small percentage of submissions in support of this particular Application.

should then identify suitable sites elsewhere in the Marine Environment that will attract the full 86 percent support and proceed with suitable Marine Protection at those sites.

There are no other comparable land based recreational and subsistence fishing areas on Great Barrier Island for locals and visitors alike to use.

An e-mail request for specific information on comparable fishing areas in response to a employee's verbal confirmation remained unanswered. One can only conclude that his lack of a reply can only mean that there are none, especially in view of the fact that my other e-mail immediately prior on another subject was replied to promptly.

The only Hapuka grounds for Auckland charter fleet and other non-commercial fishers are in proposed marine reserve area.

No provision has been made should it eventuate that sustainable, environmentally friendly aquaculture methods are developed in the future.

Any such possible development should be able to be catered for because of the need to provide full employment for Great Barrier Island residents.

The "Precautionary Approach" as outlined in the NZ Biodiversity Strategy 2000 should not used as a means to justify the imposition of a no take marine reserve with a review date 25 years hence.

Other options are available but has failed to present them as required under the NZ Biodiversity Strategy 2000. A no-take marine reserve presented as the precautionary approach makes little sense. As much sense as does the scenario, that in the event of a crack being discovered in a girder of the Auckland Harbour Bridge, the entire structure must be closed for a mandatory 25 years, even though the problem is identified and corrected in days or weeks.

Suspect information used in the formulation of the Aotea (Great Barrier) Marine Reserve Application document.

Options other than a no-take marine reserve are available, however, Auckland Conservancy Series No.5, (Jeffs and Irving 1993) used substantially in the formulation of the Aotea (Great Barrier) Marine Reserve Application has scientific errors and most unscientific assumptions.

For example, it has animals from the Class Chondrichthyes incorrectly classified under Class Osteichthyes. This is a major scientific error and brings into question the document as a whole.

Furthermore, there are the assumptions in sections 1 and 6 of the above document, which could have been easily refuted had local residents and fishers been consulted.

From section 1 the comment:

"Although some species are abundant, there are some species notable for their low numbers. Buttershill (pers. comm.) noted a lack of predatory reef species, most notably snapper, and postulated that this could be attributed to seasonal fishing pressure within the study area."

A similar comment repeated in section 6:

"Unfortunately no data is available for more commercially significant species such as snapper. Battershill (1991 pers. comm.) has noted the paucity of snapper for the Great Barrier in February 1991, compared to other locations, and has also speculated that fishing pressure could be the cause, but no data is available to confirm or refute this."

Another truly ridiculous assumption from section 6:

"Other species, such as spotty and goat fish, appear to be less dense at Great Barrier sites than in the Cape Rodney-Okakari Point marine reserve. The reasons for this are not clear, but could relate to the protection provided by the marine reserve."

The situations above were observed after viewing but a few pages of the report and immediately introduced serious doubts about the integrity of the entire document. In view of the fact that this document has been used substantially in the formulation of the Aotea (Great Barrier) Marine Reserve Application, then the Application must be viewed in the same light and discarded along with the aforementioned report (Jeffs and Irving 1993).

A number of fish species caught in the inshore areas of the Proposed Marine Reserve by local residents and visitors alike are absent from the species list in the Application document. Indeed, in the area where one subtidal habitat profile was conducted, these species absent from the list are those most frequently caught by recreational fishers.

It should also be noted that local divers are also aware of these species and can only lead one to seriously question the integrity of the surveys used in the formulation of the Application.

We would also refer to the document " Burdens of evidence and the benefits of marine reserves: putting Descartes before des horse? (Willis et al)

It should be read in relation to the Jeffs and Irving document which is essentially a review document of previous studies.

This document also cites the need for credible research to be completed before a marine reserve is established. This obviously hasn't happened here!

There is no other comparable area suitable for land based fishermen. This was confirmed by the absence of a reply to an e-mail requesting specific details to a employee at Great Barrier Island. Another e-mail sent on the same day on another subject was responded to promptly whereas this was not replied to.

This is also the Auckland Charter Fleets only Hapuka fishing ground.

The Section 5.7 (Recreational Fishing) of the Aotea (Great Barrier) Marine Reserve Application is misleading at best.

It states "Fresh fish is not readily available for sale on Great Barrier Island.". This implies incorrectly that some fresh fish are available for sale. Fresh fish is simply not available for sale on Great Barrier Island .

It also shows the results of "surveys of boats visible on the north-eastern coast of Great Barrier". These surveys only covered a small portion of the Proposed Marine Reserve area. They were conducted from three points on land at the innermost extremities of the proposed area. Indeed, one survey point was at sea level with that survey being carried out with the naked eye. These surveys are misleading at best and should not be presented in the Application document as they simply not representative of the true situation in the entire proposed marine reserve area. The chosen method was substandard and produced a totally misleading result and gives a further reason for the Application to be withdrawn,   

In southerly winds, the Harataonga to Okiwi area is virtually the only safe land based fishing area for those locals needing to fish for food. As has been observed over the last two years, winds from this quarter tend to blow strongly for a number of days leading to the suspension of ferry sailings and the subsequent shortage of staple food items at local shops. This in turn substantially increases the need for residents to fish in the proposed marine reserve area.

Interfere unduly with any existing right of navigation:

In the application document you state that the Marine Reserves Act 1971 allows for vessels to seek shelter and anchorage. You do however fail to advise the fact that under the Marine reserve Act 1971 section 18 (d) it states in part that every rangers may seize all nets, traps, firearms, ammunition, explosives, engines, instruments, appliances, equipment, or any devices . . .   that he reasonably believes are being used or intended to be so used or have been used.

This threat of seizure of equipment etc. on a belief will be always present for those seeking safe anchorage in the area and may lead to vessels taking alternative unsafe and life threatening options rather than risk seizure of equipment etc.

OVERALL CONCERNS TO FISHERS

1. The area is an important area for recreational sport fishers and sustenance fishers as this part of the Barrier gives protection to smaller craft in the prevailing sou-westerly conditions.
   
   The Department of Conservation have failed to recognise the importance of the north east coast of Great Barrier Island to the recreational sport fishers of Auckland where anglers can fish for the migratory species of marlin and tuna. Fishing for these pelagics in no way effects local biodiversity.
2. This part of the coast forms an important part of the commercial rock lobster fishery to local fishermen where the area is fished within sustainable management of the QMS.
3. Where is the risk and threat to biodiversity to warrant such a large closure when there are numerous other tools contained within a variety of Acts that will provide protection to individual species, seabed and biodiversity.
4. There has been no recognition of the adjacent Navy listening range bordering the southern boundary of the proposed reserve and no consideration given to the huge tract of sea floor and biodiversity that is protected under the Cable and Pipelines Protection Act just north of the Barrier. Both these areas afford marine protection to the same or similar biodiversity as to what the application purports to represent and protect.
5. No consideration has been given to the large Poor Knights Marine Reserve that also protects similar biodiversity and gives the public an ideal area closer to the main land to visit. An area which affords protection in all weather conditions for small craft and divers. The Poor Knights also has a small existing charter boat infrastructure that are not overly rushed and we do not see the Great Barrier marine reserve replacing either lost fishing trade or being the saviour of the existing charter boat fleet. If anything the marine reserve will be more restrictive on visitor opportunities.
6. We are concerned that appears to have done some private deals with local Iwi and adjacent land owners in an effort to seek their support for the application by offering these families grandfather rights to fish inside parts of the marine reserve to gain their support . This inference of agreement is unacceptable and and effectively divided the community to the embarrassment of these well-respected long-term families. An inference we now know is totally untrue. We also question the Applicants ability to offer Grand Father rights when we can find no provision for this within the Act.
7. We are also concerned that the Department of Conservation has admitted that it cannot effectively mark the Reserve boundaries or has the resources to effect, any form of compliance. In this case the Department will have to rely on the outside agencies of Royal NZ Navy, Royal NZ Air Force and Customs goodwill to effect any form of compliance. In all due respect to these agencies, even if they agree, any compliance patrol will be cursory and constrained by individual budgets, and operational requirements. History has shown that without regular visits by recreational fishers, particularly responsible charter boat operators, the area will be exposed to become a haven for poachers and other illegal activity. We are aware of general concerns of poaching surrounding the area of the Poor Knights marine reserve. Leigh Goat Island marine reserve also has problems and this area is under the constant surveillance of the science study team.
8. Given the recent shipping exclusion area gazetted around the Poor Knights from Cape Brett to Bream Head, the extension of the Great Barrier Marine Reserve out to the territorial 12 mile limit has the potential by default to push transiting ships on our coast further off shore to stay outside the Marine Reserve or they will choose to transit inside Great Barrier Island and out through the Colville Channel across the traditional recreational and commercial routes to the island from the mainland.
   To have large foreign going ships transiting across these traditional routes will pose a further hazard to small craft and a greater environmental risk of pollution to the sensitive areas on the western side of the Barrier and the Hauraki Gulf.
9. The application fails to recognise the requirements contained within the Hauraki Gulf Maritime Park Act.

CONCLUSION/SUMMARY.

We note that have ignored the overwhelming response opposing the original discussion proposal of the Great Barrier Marine Reserve and has proceeded with an unprecedented arrogance that borders on contempt for public opinion. The manner in which this proposal and application has evolved in the hands of the Departments staff can be described as nothing short of being quite deceitful.

Council notes that in a number of areas above we have recommended that the application be withdrawn as this would be the best outcome at this time. In anticipation that you will not accede to those recommendation Council notes that the application must fail in accord with the 1971 Act. The Minister will be unable to give his consent in accord with the law.

Council further notes the Section 5 (6) of the Marine Reserves Act 1971 clearly states (amongst other requirements)

". and shall uphold the objection if he is satisfied that declaring the area a marine reserve would ---

.(d) Interefre unduly with OR adversely affect any EXISTING USAGE of the area for recreational purposes."

In our submission this is clearly the case particularly when taking into account the present usage. On this basis alone the application clearly fails.

Council is aware of a departmental interpretation used in the case of the Wellington South Coast Marine Reserve that the Minister may offset public good aspects against such usage. It is our view that this is not correct and will be challenged in the High Court by our affiliate (Wellington Recreational Marine Fishers Assoc Inc) should that reserve receive concurrence. The Minister and Parliament have been advised of this accordingly. We also serve notice that such a challenge will be considered in this case should the Minister fail to meet his obligations in law. We submit that the clause clearly states objections must be upheld and does not in any form give room for offsetting.

We thank the Director General for the opportunity to present this submission.

We request the right to be heard by the and the Marine Reserve committee if and when convened at the appropriate time.

Max Hetherington

Secretary/Manager

Keith Ingram

President

NZ Recreational Fishing Council

TOP