This is not a complete record of the meeting, but these are the relevant questions and quotes recorded during the meeting.

Date: 28th May 03
Venue: DoC offices, Liverpool St, Auckland
Duration: 1.75 hours

Present: Bill Cooke (option4), Jim Flack (DoC), Scott Macindoe (option4), Trish Rea (option4), Tony Blomfield (public), Warwick Murray (DoC), Emma Rush (DoC), Kala Sivaguru (DoC technical support, marine scientist, monitoring dept).

Objective 1 – To gain an extension to the submission deadline of June 30th 2003 for the Great Barrier Island marine reserve proposal.

Objective 2 – To ask for public meetings to be held in Auckland to discuss the Great Barrier Island marine reserve proposal

Contents
1. Proposal document discussion.
2. Public consultation discussion.
3. Feedback to date.

Proposal Document
Warwick Murray – “We are not into managing fish populations.” “We are not into fisheries management, we are into habitat management”

Question relating to the lack of scientific evidence produced to support their proposal

WM – “ We have provided the science. The brochure is supportive of the science”
Scott Macindoe – “Can we please have all DoC records and history of the Great Barrier reserve proposal, relevant minutes of the Steering Committee from the early 1990's, records of submissions made then and all other related information?”
WM – “If we can dig them out of our files you can have it, if you provide money.”
SM – “So you are asking us for money?”
WM – “Yes. We will make it available under the Official Information Act (OIA).”
Emma Rush – “If you want to come in and help go through the records we will provide a comprehensive record of all reserve proposals for Great Barrier Island.”
WM – “What we will provide is what is on record. The evidence for the current proposal will be made available to you.”

Public Consultation
SM – “Can you please explain DoC’s policy regarding consultation, public meetings in general”
WM – “We are open to be persuaded that public meetings are useful”
SM – “Do you see public meetings held in Auckland as being necessary for public consultation on the proposal?”
WM – “No”
WM – “The purpose of the process is to find out who uses the area, how they use it, how are they going to be affected and how often they use the area.”
SM – “Can you please explain DoC’s policy regarding consultation, public meetings, specific to the Great Barrier Island proposal”
WM – “Public meetings are not going to get to any more people that what we have got to already”
SM – “The size, scale and scope of this (proposal) demands more public consultation. It demonstrates a position of fear that you don’t do more. We will help you, if you organise public meetings. We need adequate public meetings and adequate publicity for those meetings.”
WM – “No”
SM – “You leave us no alternative but to flay the process”
WM – “That’s your opinion. You’re asking if we have got to the people that will be affected?” (by this proposal)
SM – “So you are saying public meetings aren’t useful, that they equal slanging matches?”
WM – “Public meetings equal slanging matches. Yes. Essentially”
Jim Flack – “I think this (proposal) will go through, possibly not in the areas close in”
ER – “We anticipate getting an independent analysis of the submissions. We are quite happy for you to come in and look at the analysis”
SM – “Are you rigid, adamant and non negotiable to an extension to the submission period?”
WM – “If there is good solid evidence, arguments that people need more time, if there are substantial numbers of people out there that haven’t had time to hear and consider the proposal, we will consider it. I need to be convinced.
SM - “How should we go about convincing you?”
WM - “If enough people phone us or email us we will have to consider an extension to the submission close-off date”(30th June).
SM - “Will you provide an extension of time for public consultation?”
WM – “I am comfortable with the process guidelines that we have followed.”
ER – “This is the non statutory stage, no-one is obliged to follow any formal process.”
SM – “What process is this?”
ER – “The one in the handbook. I can give you a copy of the guidelines handbook. It’s for those applying for marine reserves. ”
SM - “Considering we don’t have the resources, we would like formal notification a year before any proposal is put out”
WM – “What, so you can mount a challenge against it? Just give us your considered opinion.”
SM – “Can we please have a copy of the budget for this proposal?”
ER – “Trish has already asked for that. I am working on it.”
WM – “We will give you the information. We will not give you a copy.”
SM - “Why not?”
WM – “Because it contains personal information. You can include the request for the budget in your Official Information Act request.”
SM – “Can you email the information to us?”
WM – “Yes, we will look into it.”
WM – “If there’s people out there who find out and they say they haven’t got time (to submit) then we will consider extending the time. They can ring Emma or email us.”

Discussion regarding who has been consulted and the lack of public awareness surrounding the proposal.

WM – “We have been talking with tangata whenua since December, we have been talking with people on the island since January, there have been stories in the Herald and in the fishing magazines and a news item on TV3. I am not persuaded the vast majority of people are not aware of the proposal.”
SM - “So what sort of advertising have you done?”
WM – No TV or (NZ) Herald ads.
SM – “Can we have your media budget please?”
WM – “We don’t have that.”
SM – “So what advertising have you done so far?”
JF – “We have placed two lots of advertisements in the Barrier Bulletin, there has been two big editorials in the Herald and its been on TV.”

Question - can we get copies of the editorials?
ER – “We will get copies of them to you.”

Feedback To Date
SM – “Can you advise what tangata whenua’s position is in regards to the proposal.”
JF – “Tangata whenua are still forming their position, both on the island and the mainland.”
ER – “We are expecting individual responses from tangata whenua too, not just the overall statement from them.”

Question regarding email submissions - Jim has already agreed we can use his email for submissions, we would like confirmation of his email address. It was agreed at the Fitzroy meeting that submissions did not have to be on the questionnaire provided. Jim was happy to take a submission on a piece of paper. Can you please confirm this.

WM – “This is not a numbers game. We would prefer that (questionnaire) format. It’s about getting specific information.”

Follow Up
Official Information Act request 29/05/03 for the following -

1. All DoC records and history of the Great Barrier reserve proposal - relevant minutes of the Steering Committee early 1990's, records of submissions made then and all other related information.
2. Copy of the budget for the GBI proposal.
3. Copy of the media budget.

Emma has supplied a copy of the editorials that have been published in the NZ Herald and a copy of advertisements placed in the Barrier Bulletin.

Emma Rush has supplied a copy of the guidelines handbook for marine reserve proposers.