Office of Hon Pete Hodgson
MP for Dunedin North

5 NOV 2003

Dear Trish Rea

Thank you for your letter received by email on 23 October 2003 concerning the Paterson Inlet Marine Reserve application.

The Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Fisheries have an agreed process for considering marine reserve applications. A copy of this process is attached. With new, or recent, applications this process involves a joint Department of Conservation and Ministry of Fisheries consultation/submission process. However, some applications, such as the Paterson Inlet one, may require a further consultation process in order for the Ministry of Fisheries to provide me with up-to-date information upon which to base my concurrence decision.

The Ministry of Fisheries' consultation process for the Paterson Inlet Marine Reserve proposal has been well advertised, in newspapers as far north as Canterbury , and a submission period of five weeks was allowed. I understand that the Ministry of Fisheries has advised you that they will accept late submissions up until 11 November 2003 - a two-week extension.

I also understand that Rose Grindley has spoken with you and clarified the way that the Ministry of Fisheries will handle submissions. The submission process is not a voting process, with the highest number "winning". Each submission will be analysed on the merits of the relevant information put forward and the relevant benefits or impacts identified by the submitter, or submitters.

It is correct that a mataitai reserve application has been filed for an area of Paterson Inlet. The application covers all of the coastal waters of the Inlet lying to the southwest of a line from Acker's Point to Buller's Point, excluding the area proposed as a marine reserve. I believe that the tangata whenua and the Stewart Island community have been working closely together to develop the mataitai reserve application. In addition, tangata whenua and the Department of Conservation have worked together in the expectation that the proposed mataitai reserve and the proposed marine reserve will complement each other.

At the time of the consultation meetings for the Paterson Inlet Marine Reserve proposal, the mataitai reserve application had not been received. A separate process must be run for the mataitai reserve application as it falls under different legislation to that of the marine reserve application.

The consultation process for a mataitai reserve proposal is set out in the Fisheries (South Island Customary Fishing) Regulations 1999, and includes consultation with the local community and with persons who take fish, aquatic life, or seaweed, or own quota in the area concerned. "Local community" is defined in the regulations as "those persons who own land in the proximity of the proposed mataitai reserve or those who have a place of residence in the proximity of the proposed mataitai reserve and have been in occupation for a cumulative period of no less than 3 months in the 3 consecutive years immediately preceding the date of the application.

I have enclosed an information pamphlet explaining the South Island Customary Fishing Regulations and the process. Further copies are available from Ministry of Fisheries offices. A copy of the Regulations may be obtained from your nearest Government Bookshop.

While the Paterson Inlet Fisheries Management Plan has been a successful initiative, there may be management needs for the area wider than just fisheries management. Marine reserves are to preserve areas for the scientific study of marine life, and mataitai reserves are to recognise and provide for customary food gathering by Maori and the special relationship between tangata whenua and places of importance for customary food gathering.

Before I make any concurrence decision about the proposed Paterson Inlet Marine Reserve, I assure you that I will be carefully weighing up the impacts and benefits.

Yours sincerely

Hon Pete Hodgson

Minister of Fisheries

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