MEETING REPORT

AUCKLAND CONSERVATION BOARD

Venue: DoC, Conservancy office, Karangahape Road , Auckland

Date: Thursday 11 th December 2003

Chair: Paddy Stafford-Bush, ACB

Attendance: 5 public, 8 Board members, Rob McCallum (DoC), Rebecca Rush (DoC), Warwick Murray (DoC). Emma Rush (DoC) for part of meeting.

Public Forum

Elizabeth Andrew

Rangitoto Island Historic Conservation Trust gave a PowerPoint presentation on the work Trust volunteers had been carrying out on the island to renovate several baches. They are in the process of restoring two baches to habitable condition. The volunteers remove inorganic rubbish, help in pest eradication and building restoration. They hold a fishing competition every year which is very popular. Member meetings are held four times a year. AMP is the principal sponsor of the Trust and Jim Mason is the patron.

The Trust is struggling to gain financial and other support for some aspects of their programme due to the lack of concession rights being granted by DoC. Some issues have been outstanding for at least 7 years and are very frustrating for the Trust. The Trust and DoC signed a Memorandum of Understanding in 1998.

Board response

The Board were supportive of the Trust's work and discussed the delay in granting non – notified concession rights for the Trust to operate on the island. One Board member mentioned the same issue had been outstanding since 1996, her first year one the Conservation Board. Warwick Murray (DoC) explained the Department are working with the Trust and should be able to rectify some of the issues in the near future.

Trish Rea

option4 spokesperson addressed the Board and provided written copy of statement. option4 had not received a response from the Board on issues left with them during the August meeting.

George Mason – The memorial service for George Mason was described and the Board seemed to appreciate the message.

Consultation – option4's position in relation to who is considered a local when conducting consultation for a marine reserve proposal was discussed. option4 consider the consultation carried out during the non – statutory stage of the Great Barrier Island marine reserve proposal was inadequate. The statement that the ‘Drop In' meetings were public meetings was dismissed as a whitewash, by option4.

Marine protection – option4 consider the public are ready to engage in a meaningful strategic approach to marine protection. The public are already demonstrating their willingness to conserve but need a coordinated programme with all marine protection measures considered including customary Maori management tools.

High-speed vessel purchase – The Board was asked to consult with the Department and confirm whether there had been a purchase of a high-speed vessel for use at the Barrier.

Board response – The Board's response to issues raised by option4 at the August meeting are contained in the minutes of the last meeting. There was a fair amount of discussion but not all of the discussion has been recorded in the minutes. Minutes of discussion as follows –

Floor Anthoni paper on marine reserves: Paddy spoke in relation to this paper which had been tabled at the August meeting, noting that while some very good points had been made, she was disappointed by other assumptions in the paper. Discussion continued in relation to the Public Forum statements by option4. points made included:

• Extremes were needed to reach middle ground and inadequate data about issues such as sedimentation could lead communities to make assumptions;
• Important for groups such as option4 to be listened to and concerns acknowledged.
• Recognition of option4's support for the marine biodiversity protection strategic planning exercise.

DoC response – Rob McCallum and Warwick Murray responded on behalf of the Department of Conservation

George Mason - Rob McCallum responded by saying he had received three phone calls including one that morning, from people who objected to option4's political grandstanding at George's service, particularly when George was in support of the marine reserve.

Trish explained option4 attended the service for George, to celebrate his life and to be there for his family. What was expressed by some people, on the day was a personal view, not that of option4. George Mason did not support the marine reserve proposal and had been very clear about his views.

Definition of local - Rob went on to say that DoC had never tried to define a local. They had to consider who was most affected by a marine reserve and obviously the locals who fished and gathered seafood would be most affected by their proposal.

Risks - DoC do not consider there are any risks in relation to their marine reserve proposal for the northeastern coast of Great Barrier Island .

Barrier marine reserve - Warwick Murray (DoC) commented that the article in the (NZ) Herald had given people the wrong impression about the Barrier proposal. DoC are “ not pulling back, we are continuing, we are not walking away from the marine reserve proposal”.

High-speed vessel - Rob McCallum denied DoC had purchased a high-speed vessel for use at the Barrier. The Department own two vessels which are condemned, one is in such a state it is almost “sinking at its mooring”. A new vessel would be at least number six on the list of priority.

Summary

At the end of the public forum the Board continued with their meeting as per the agenda. Emma Rush was to address the Board with an update on the proposal for a strategy for protection of marine biodiversity in the Hauraki Gulf . Emma's presentation included a summary of the process used for the establishment of a network of marine protected areas in Victoria , Australia.

For the complete transcript of option4's address to the Conservation Board and tribute to George Mason go here » www.option4.co.nz/acba1203.htm

October 29 th 2003

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you again today.

option4 have spoken to the Board three times this year with the intention of informing you of what the public are saying regarding marine reserves and marine protection in general. As an independent body representing community interests in their rights to fish for food and marine protection it is only fair we make this effort to share with you what feedback we are getting.

Great Barrier Island marine reserve

I note with interest the comment in the unconfirmed minutes of the August Board meeting that the analysis of the submissions would be available to the public by the end of September. I understand this has been delayed and would like some indication of when the analysis will be available. There is a huge amount of interest in this proposal and in particular the process undertaken by DoC to gather support for the reserve, the process and basis of their analysis of the public feedback.

Public Meetings

Also noted is the comment that the ‘Drop In' meeting held at the Marine Rescue Centre was “ in effect a public meeting”. In no way can that meeting be considered a public meeting in consultation terms. If we look at the definition on effective consultation in the Court of Appeal decision arising from the case between International Airport Ltd and Air New Zealand (CA 23/92, 73/92[1993] 1 NZLR 671). The relevant section of the decision is as follows:

‘Consultation must allow sufficient time, and a genuine effort must be made. It is a reality not a charade. To consult is not merely to tell or present. Nor, at the other extreme is it to agree. Consultation does not necessarily involve negotiation towards an agreement, although the latter not uncommonly can follow, as the tendency in consultation is to seek at least consensus. Consultation is an intermediate situation involving meaningful discussion. Despite its somewhat impromptu nature I cannot improve on the attempt at description, which I made in West Coast United Council v Prebble at p. 405:

‘Consulting involves the statement of a proposal not yet fully decided upon, listening to what others have to say, considering their responses and then deciding what will be done.'

Implicit in the concept is a requirement that the party consulted will be (or will be made) adequately informed so as to be able to make intelligent and useful responses. It is also implicit that the party obliged to consult, while quite entitled to have working plan in mind, must keep its mind open and be ready to change and even start afresh. Beyond that, there are no universal requirements as to form. Any matter of oral or written interchange which allows adequate expression and consideration of views will suffice. Nor is there any universal requirement as to duration. In some situations adequate consultation could take place in one telephone call. In other contexts it might require years of formal meetings. Generalities are not helpful.'

While the Department may consider their obligations to consult less due to the non – statutory phase of the Great Barrier Island marine reserve proposal option4 consider any attempts at consultation should at least meet the requirements of the above legal definition. It is also very important to note that the statutory phase of the marine reserve establishment process does not include consultation with the wider public. For many, what consultation will occur has occurred. We remain firm in our opinion that the Department's efforts to inform the public of their opportunities to be consulted were inadequate.

‘Drop In' Meetings

At the 'Drop In' meetings the public were offered the opportunity to talk to staff on a one-on-one basis and have their opinions recorded. Where have those opinions been recorded and would the Board have access to the records? option4 would like to have a copy of those opinions for our records with any obvious personal information removed.

Marine Reserves

It was very encouraging to listen to the Conservator, Rob McCallum address the Hauraki Gulf Forum on September 17 th and acknowledge the concerns raised regarding the ad hoc nature of marine reserve creation, the lack of strategic approach to marine reserve proposals and concerns around public consultation. The fact that DoC has decided to take a leading role in talking to all of those agencies and the public about how we want biodiversity protected is a great step forward and option4 want to be part of that process. There is a lot more that can be gained by a cooperative approach than any process we have been involved with to date. We look forward to being actively involved and using our networks to engage with the public in a meaningful and consultative manner.

Thank you for your time today

Trish Rea