Present:

Minister, Hon Pete Hodgson
Stan Crothers
Paul Barnes
Kim Walshe
Scott Macindoe
Peggy Barnes
Bill Cooke

The Minister suggested that 7 to 9 people would be required for the Advisory Group and indicated that 2 or 3 of those could be from the option4 group.

Paul Barnes indicated to the Minister that before we could begin discussing any form of committee or group that there were issues involving the process of Soundings which needed to be resolved. Paul went on to clarify these issues as being the Ministry's misreporting of the public meetings (namely the Papatoetoe meeting) and also the Rights Working Group report and independent review which do not appear to reflect the correct numbers of supporters for several issues in reference to the submissions on the Soundings process. Paul warned that if not resolved first, misinformation could lead the group to incorrectly weight the issues and their relative importance to the public. Paul reflected the need for a level playing field in any future process and, due to the lack of trust with the Ministry, held great concern for future occurrences of misreporting. Paul stressed that option4 would like to deal directly with the Minister. Paul also explained that option4's mandate was constrained to issues contained in it's submission and suggested that once the issue of the anomalies in the Rights Working Group report and independent review were resolved, then debate should initially focus on the option4 submission. Debate on issues outside the option4 submission could require further Public consultation.

The Minister asked Paul if he would he like to take up these issues with Stan Crothers straight away and Paul suggested that this could be done at a later time but just wanted to make sure that these issues were flagged and recorded.

Pete Hodgson went on to talk about local structures and capacity building. He explained that the first meeting of the Ministerial Advisory Group will be to hear what he wants. The Minister suggested that the Advisory Group would be operating from April 2001 and December 2001. Prior to this the Minister wants to get a work plan and a time chart in place and said that he can't make progress without consensus.

Paul said that option4 had the following concerns;

Under the status quo it is very difficult for recreational fishing representatives to make any progress on any issues because we have no specified rights on which to base our arguments.

This allows the commercial sector to stall progress by using a myriad of petty arguments and makes it difficult for the Ministry to accommodate the concerns expressed.

Paul added that it is pointless building a national and regional structure without defining the right first. It is like trying to build a machine without knowing what the machine is to be used for.

Paul stated that we had always had a priority and the crown, through implementing the Quota Management System (QMS) and Maori Customary and commercial settlements, and the Ministry and Crowns interpretation of those rights, has in the past, and continues to, erode the public's right to harvest seafood. The public are being asked to accept the leftovers as their harvesting right.

The Minister responded that he could not buy into priority. He also said that the area snapper 1 rebuild would not have occurred without recreational input.

Paul replied that the Soundings process is not new. Every time the public's harvesting rights are discussed the starting point is always an attempt to cap the level of public harvest and give non-commercial fishers the leftovers. The Ministry and Government are not listening to the public. We have documents that are written pre-September 1998 which effectively gives the same 3 options as the Soundings document. It appears to option4 that including the N.Z. Recreational Fishing Council (NZRFC) in the process was just a rubber stamping exercise for a preconceived Ministry agenda.

Stan Crouthers stated that a draft recreational fishing policy was consulted on in 1986 concurrent with the implementation of the QMS. Colin Moyle signed off on this policy in 1989. Stan added that at the time he had believed that non-commercial got the first cut of the cake with the commercial sector receiving the balance. However, in 1988 Maori Customary took the Crown to court and the initial decision was that the Crown did not own the fish and the Crown had no right to give it away, that is, implement the Quota Management System (QMS). The Crown spent several hundred million dollars to purchase quota and also to implement Customary fishing regulations to settle Maori fisheries claims. This changed all Article 2 rights. Stan also stated that recreational rights need to be better defined and protected in this new environment. He noted that he had outlined this situation in his speech to the RFC AGM in 1998 which started the "Soundings" process.

Paul said that the Maori commercial settlement integrates Maori commercial fishers into the QMS. Judge McGeekan determined that Maori fully understood the QMS and accepted this fact. This means there are only 3 sectors in the fishery; customary, commercial and the public harvesters. Paul also stated that the cash used in the settlement had no special powers and was no different than any other cash used to purchase commercial fishing quota.

Stan replied that there were 3 parts to the Maori settlement.

1. That Maori accepted the QMS and become part of it. This included the quota and allocation and Cash settlement plus 20% of all new species plus Customary fishing rights and management rights and
2. Implementation of the Customary Fishing Regulations
4. Input and participation rights of iwi in fisheries management decision-making.

Kim Walshe stated that we accept that sustainability is the ultimate objective in the fishery. We also accept the priority of Maori Customary. Kim added that we do want our rights defined and that it is critical to define this right first. The structure can only follow after the right has been determined.

Stan asked for clarification on this point. "In defining the rights are you talking about ownership rights, access rights, or management/participation rights. If it is access rights, it is in terms of the quantum or spacial attributes like area exclusions zones etc."

Paul replied that without defining the position of where the public right falls, discussing management and structure is a waste of time. He reiterated the 3 objectives of option4.

1. A recreational priority right over commercial fishers, for free access to a reasonable daily bag limit in legislation.

2. The ability to exclude commercial methods that deplete recreationally important areas and

3. The ability to devise plans to ensure future generations enjoy the same or better quality of rights while preventing fish conserved for such purposes by the recreational sector being given to the commercial sector.

Pete Hodgson replied "so you are after a multi-dimensional right?"

Kim added that one example of the area right is the Bay of Plenty and the recent exclusion of trawlers from part of that area. Kim asked the Minister if that was part of our right or not.

The Minister expressed concern regarding area rights, and that by pushing commercial fishers ever further offshore then compensation issues would arise.

Kim then asked the Minister how compensation issues are to be addressed with the implementation of Maori Taipure.

Pete Hodgson replied that recreational rights exist at his pleasure and there is no box of logic in law regarding these issues.

Kim went on to ask the Minister "what level of certainty does the Ministry need before it will define and implement a recreational right, and are challenges through the courts the main concern of the Ministry?"

Pete Hodgson responded that sustainability was his main priority and some groups have requested non-commercial zones up to 12 miles offshore and there was no way he could consider those type of proposals.

Paul replied that option4 has never sought a blanket commercial exclusion zone. What option4 seeks, and has always sought, is that where there is a demonstrable spatial conflict, the public needs a right to be able to resolve those issues. For example, it has taken nearly 20 years in the Tauranga Harbour to achieve a resolution to long standing grievances. This was intolerable for those involved and it is appalling that the Government and the Ministry allowed this issue to drag on for so long.

The Minister suggested an improved dispute resolutions process could be implemented.

Scott Macindoe suggested that this was an oxymoron. We can't have an improved dispute resolutions process in the absence of a defined public right.

Paul said that it is imperative that before disputes can be resolved the position of the public right in regard to other rights holders must be determined.

Pete Hodgson responded that he did not think there was an answer as to where the recreational sector sits in the queue. Sometimes they will be before commercial, and sometimes not.

Paul suggested that an alternative may be a shifting of the burden of proof in spatial conflict issues. We have to remember that the recreational sector is up against full time, paid, fishing industry lobbyists, their scientists and their lawyers. Tauranga is but one example of how these resources can be used to stall resolution processes.

The Minister stated that it sounded like option4 were one stop shopping in the belief that defining the right is the solution.

Kim Walshe replied that the priority must be to debate and determine what the right is.

Pete Hodgson responded that he wished to better protect the recreational right and preferred an improved dispute resolution process of some sort as part of the package and to resolve outstanding issues.

Scott suggested that we were being derailed with word "protection." Definition is not protection, and protect what? The Government should accept that this is going to cost, although it is not an open cheque book option4 seeks.

Paul said that the measure of success in determining the right would be when the representatives of public harvesters could walk into negotiations with a group of commercial fishers and the Ministry and be listened to and have their position respected and their concerns progressed toward a resolution. The Crown has given very strong rights to all other users in the fishery, this has created an injustice against members of the public who fish or harvest seafood. It is the Government that caused this imbalance and the government that must fix it. If the public right is not somehow made at least as strong as commercial, we will get nowhere. In the absence of a strong public right the commercial sector can continue to use its traditional methods of stalling progress on fishery issues.

Kim Walshe added that the QMS has been defined by principles by successive cabinets (through the Cabinet paper decision making process), as well as in detail by the passage of legislation. The public right could be better defined using a core set of principles. A Ministerial Advisory Group must begin with a defined set of principles.

As the meeting drew to a close the Minister asked option4 to consider its position and whether or not it would become involved in the Advisory Group. The Minister reiterated that he wanted to make progress and would be happy to talk about the rules of the group at the first meeting of the Advisory Group.

The Ministerial Advisory Group will be comprised of recreational fishers only and they would report directly to the Minister. The Minister would then go to other user groups for further consultation.

Pete Hodgson indicated that he would need a written response to this request within a week.

The Minister then left the meeting for his next engagement. Scott, Paul, Peggy, Bill and Stan remained for a further hour during which time the option4 group were able to raise in more detail the issues regarding the integrity of the soundings process which were briefly discussed at the beginning of the meeting. No minutes were taken during this informal discussion.