TIRITIRI ACTION GROUP
Tiritiri Action Group u PO Box 600 Whangaparaoa u 1463

Media Release

19.06.2003

___________________________________________________

NZ Underwater Association Misuse of Sir Peter Blake Name

It is a great shame that NZ Underwater executive, Peter Crabb, has to resort to emotional association to achieve his committee's goals. The premature announcement that the Tiritiri Matangi-Whangapararoa marine reserve proposal should be called the "Sir Peter Blake Marine Reserve" is a desperate attempt to grow the support base for the proposed reserve.

The reserve, an initiative of the NZUA, has attracted overwhelming objections from the Rodney District community. There is also doubt that within the NZ Underwater Association, the majority of their membership actually supports the proposal and that the committee associated with it is on their own agenda. The environmental committee of NZ Underwater is blatantly proceeding ahead with the proposal in an attitude of 'we know what's best', despite what the majority of the public want. What is worse, they are using taxpayers' funding through Department of Conservation grants to achieve their aims.

The proposal for Tiritiri Matangi-Whangaparaoa does not fulfil the purposes of the current Marine Reserve Act, is not an ideal area for a marine reserve and will not deliver the promises suggested by the NZUA. To disregard the majority of submissions which objected to the reserve proposal, submissions which came from those most affected, the residents of the Rodney area, is head in the sand mentality. The majority clearly do not support the proposal, and the association of Sir Peter Blake's name with it before a decision has been made, does this great man an injustice

The principle of naming a reserve after Sir Peter Blake has merit but NZ Underwater Association should think carefully on how this could be achieved rather than use his name for their personal agendas.

Rex Smith, Chairman, Tiritiri Action Group.

WHANGAPARAOA

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