September 2003

Background

In July 2002 the Minister of Conservation. Hon. Sandra Lee, gave her approval for a marine reserve in Paterson Inlet.

It should be noted however that the Minister's announcement has not actually established a reserve. The approval (or 'concurrence' role) of the Ministers of Fisheries and Transport is also required before a marine reserve can be legally established. This will involve further public consultation.

The Process

The marine reserve proposal began its long journey in 1991 with the formation of the Paterson Inlet Marine Protection Committee (PIMPC), a group made up mainly of Stewart Islanders. Following extensive consultation, a discussion document was released and submissions on the proposal were received in March 1993, with over 228 responses. About 82% of submitters supported a marine reserve. Almost half (105) of the responses came from Stewart Island residents and 70% of them supported the proposal.

In the discussions which followed, several boundary changes were considered by the committee to accommodate the Hunter family of Ulva Island and some recreational fisher interests. After some consideration the committee recommended that the original proposal should remain unaltered.

In June 1995 the Director General of Conservation approved the proposal and it was advertised nationally for further submissions. Of the 286 submissions received 184 were objections. The main concern was the loss of recreational fishing opportunity. To ensure the department was able to gauge the local community response, a further questionnaire was sent out to island residents and non resident ratepayers in August 1995. Over 176 responses were received with the following responses:

• 29% favoured full protection (the proposal as it stood), with another 40% supporting the marine reserve if line fishing zones were allowed with it;
• 14% did not support the proposal but supported some form of protection within Paterson Inlet;
• 17% did not support a marine reserve in Paterson Inlet.

In September 1996 the application, with objections and submissions in support, was sent to the Minister of Conservation. In July 1997 the Minister directed the department to discuss the objections with the Hunter family, Southland Recreational Marine Fishers Association and to address iwi concerns. Since that date:

• The department has made a boundary change in Sydney Cove to accommodate some of the Hunter family objections.
• Discussions have been held with iwi and their concerns have been relayed to the Minister of Conservation throughout the process.
• The exclusion of the east end boundary from the marine reserve to allow for customary and recreational take.
• The objection posed by the Southland Recreational Marine Fishers Association, regarding navigation through the proposed reserve was also addressed by an assurance that simply having fish or fishing equipment on board does not, and will not, constitute evidence of an offence.

Where to Now?

The proposed reserve, now waiting for concurrence covers 1077 hectares, which is about 10% of Paterson Inlet. That equates to approximately the same size as Big Glory Bay . If approved and gazetted the proposed reserve will provide a remarkable chance for scientific study in an outstanding part of NZ and give the opportunity to observe significant natural features in an undisturbed state for generations to come. What better way to illustrate to visitors to Stewart Island the full diversity of the marine environment in the crystal clear waters for which the island is renowned.

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