Minister of Fisheries
Parliament Buildings
Wellington

Email: phodgson@ministers.govt.nz

Cc: option4
NZRFC
NZBGFC
NZDA
SSFC

Thursday October 23, 2003

Paterson Inlet Marine Reserve

Dear Minister

I understand you have asked for feedback on the Paterson Inlet marine reserve application in order to assist your decision on concurrence for this application. Your Ministry have held two meetings to discuss the issue with the public and have advised we have until October 28, 2003 to respond. I would like to ask for an extension of time to respond for another 60 days, till December 27, 2003.

The meetings conducted by your Ministry were held in Invercargill (September 25 th ) and Stewart Island (September 24 th ). By all accounts these meetings were very well run and constructive. It would be appropriate if more meetings were scheduled and advertised in Christchurch , Dunedin , Queenstown and possibly Greymouth. Many fishers and hunters visit Stewart Island and are unaware of the existence of the marine reserve application.

Over the past week option4 have had a number of enquiries from people who use the area for recreational purposes and have not been consulted. These people are both from within the Southland area and beyond. Safety is a major concern for most of these people when using this area of interest.

I understand you support the concept of good process in your decision-making and this issue raises some questions which I would like answers for. Please take the time to consider and offer answers to the following –

1. Is this process of asking for feedback for concurrence on a marine reserve application an ongoing issue or just being applied to this particular application?
2. Do you or your Ministry have a formal process in place to deal with concurrence decisions?
3. If so, can we have a copy of the guidelines/ process relating to marine reserve applications?
4. Is it correct that a mataitai application has been filed with MFish for an area in Paterson Inlet?
5. Attendees at the Invercargill meeting were advised that only land owners adjoining the area within the mataitai application can submit to that application process, is this correct?
6. If so, where are these rules explained in the Fisheries Act or any other Act?

Submissions

You will be well aware of option4's involvement to date regards marine reserves as indicated during our meeting in Wellington on October 1 st . In the absence of a review period for a marine reserve we consider marine reserves to affect all New Zealanders and as such they have a right to be aware and make comment on any application. Rose Grindley of MFish specifically stated in the Invercargill meeting that group submissions would be counted as a single submission.

• Is this MFish policy?
• Since when has this been MFish policy and where is the policy explained in MFish documents?
• Would you please provide a definition of group submission and single submission

Maori Fisheries Management Tools

Customary Maori fisheries management tools such as mataitai and taiapure are not generally well understood by the public. To achieve positive results from any marine protection measure there has to be public support and buy in. The opportunity exists to explore the possibility of using one of these measures in lieu of marine reserves. It would be good to see Maori working with the public of New Zealand to give effect to these tools. Maybe this is an opportunity to take the time to examine the risks and benefits of all protection measures available, not just a marine reserve in Paterson Inlet.

Current Protection

Considering the success of the Fisheries Management Plan within the Paterson Inlet it is questionable if any further protection measures are required. I have been advised that the Paterson Inlet Management Plan is often used as an example of how well this scheme can work with support of the public. What evidence exists that supports the need for more restrictions to the public use of the area?

Summary

The consultation you and your Ministry have instigated in relation to this marine reserve application is a positive move however the consultation needs to be more thorough and widespread. An extension of 60 days would help in this regard. The need for stricter protection measures needs to be fully examined and consideration given to other measures. Exploration accompanied by an education campaign to facilitate the implementation of existing customary Maori fisheries management tools would be appropriate and timely.

Time is of the essence. I would appreciate your earliest possible response and acknowledgment of this letter considering the current submission deadline of October 28 th .

Yours faithfully

Trish Rea

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