Office of Hon Pete Hodgson
MP for Dunedin North
Minister of Energy
Minister of Fisheries
Minister of Research, Science and Technology
Minister for Crown Research Institutes
Associate Minister for Industry and Regional Development
Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Convenor, Ministerial Group on Climate Change

19 DEC 2003

Jeff Romeril
President
NZ Big Game Fishing Council
PO Box 93
Whangarei

Dear Jeff

Thank you for your letter of 1st December, providing a careful and comprehensive response to the reform proposal that were last discussed in October.

I am most appreciative of the time that you and your members have spent on these issues, and the way you have actively worked together to develop a consensus on the proposal for progress. I believe that the process of working together in this way, has allowed constructive dialogue to develop, which we can build on in the future.

At the end of the October meeting I asked the Reference Group to see if they could reach a consensus on the level of support that you would be able to provide for a number of specific areas of reform, including amendments to the Fisheries Act.

Your response indicates that there is consensus within your group to support some parts of the package, but not others. In particular you are unable to support the proposal to alter section 21 of the Act, to set out specific criteria for the Minister to have regard to, when making allowances before setting a "Total Allowable Commercial Catch" (TACC).

I am heartened by the support you have indicated for most parts of this proposal. I note your opposition to reform of section 21, which I saw as a central element of the reforms. The proposed amendments to s21 would improve the certainty and transparency around the provision of the allowance for recreational fishers, and thereby give better specification of the nature of the recreational right. Given the position explained by the Reference Group, the conclusion I reach is that the option of using legislation to effect reform of recreational fisheries will have to be postponed for the immediate future.

As I indicated at our meeting, legislative reform would only be successful if it had a substantial degree of stakeholder acceptance.

Given the already tight legislative program for next year, and the time that has elapsed, I think we have missed the chance of clarifying allocation decisions as they relate to recreational interests, by altering the Act, and we need to make progress by other means on the issues where we are in agreement.

It may be that, in the future, we can revisit the allocation issue and continue to try and reach agreement, using the very useful background work that we have carried out together.

As I noted earlier, I am heartened by your agreement to provide support for other proposals because I believe that there are several areas where we may be able to make significant progress. These are;

•  Better information on recreational fishers and fisheries

•  More clarity about decisions in respect of recreational fisheries

•  Review of specific regulations

Better information

It seems clear that the allocation decisions under the present Act, as well as decisions in respect of other measures, such as section 311, and sustainability measures, would benefit from improved information on recreational fishing activity. This information will provide for the better recognition of recreational interests and a better platform for future decisions.

I note that work is underway within the Ministry to identify specific research projects and I have indicated my support for obtaining increased funding to obtain improved information. When we have improved harvest estimates, these can be used as a basis for decisions on existing allocations. The proposal for cooperative development of a recreational CPUE type database is worthy of further consideration in order to develop a workable option.

More clarity about decisions affecting recreational fishers

There are several developments underway which will assist in providing a better understanding of recreational fisheries management.

a) An agreement by the Fisheries Management business of the Ministry of Fisheries, to develop a more transparent process for the consideration of proposals, including those from the recreational fishing sector, for inclusion in the Ministry sustainability review process

b) The development of stock strategies. These documents will, over time, outline the management objectives for the stock, and the various measures put in place to work towards attaining those objectives. It is intended that these strategies will set out specific management objectives, including those for recreational fishers. The strategies will provide for the involvement of all sectors in setting the objectives for the fishery.

Review of specific regulations

I understand that the Ministry has already approached your group with an invitation for you to put forward ten specific regulations for review, and has committed to initiate the review.

While the full detail of these measures is not yet developed, I am confident that they will, over time, improve the management of recreational fisheries, particularly in respect of the integration of decision-making.

Looking back over the process of the last 18 months or so, it seems to me that we have reached the end of a particular stage. We have had a series of, at times robust, but productive discussions which have improved our ability to work constructively together. While there hasn't been enough of a consensus to proceed with legislative reform; we have nevertheless had positive results in identifying a number of particular areas where the management of recreational fisheries can be improved.

In the next stage, Ministry officials will continue, with your assistance, to work on the issues we have identified, particularly the proposals to improve the accuracy and scope of information on recreational fishing. I have no doubt that, while there is still work to be done in creating more certainty and transparency in respect of recreational rights, the work so far is a positive step.

Thank you once again for the very significant time and effort that you have put in voluntarily on behalf of recreational fishers.

Yours truly

Hon Pete Hodgson

Minister of Fisheries

cc

Read the complete text of the letter sent to the Minister on December 1 st from your recreational representatives here www.option4.co.nz/refgpl1203.htm

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