NEW ZEALAND UNDERWATER
New Zealand Underwater Association Inc.

Rex Smith
Chairman
Tag Committee
P.O. 600 Whangaparaoa

September 8, 2003

Dear Mr. Smith,

Re: Your letter dated August 22

The analysis of the submissions for the proposed Tiritiri Marine Reserve is being conducted by: Paolo Vajna de Pava, Elizabeth Freitas and Myself. Paolo has a degree in environmental economic, Elizabeth is a veterinarian and I have a Master of Science Degree in Marine Science. The submissions are being analysed according to Marine Reserves Handbook for Prospective Applicants, a DOC publication. The analysis is not difficult, does not require any specialist knowledge of statistics, but it is time consuming.

There is no delay in publishing the findings of the Tiritiri analysis because we are still in a non-statutory phase, and there are no imposed time frames and it's up to us how and when we proceed. As a stakeholder, TAG will be presented with the findings of the public consultation, along with the other stakeholder groups, when the analysis is complete. It should be noted that this is still a public discussion period and not a formal submission period.

When the results of public discussion are analysed, a further round of consultation is planned, and as I have said on several occasions, I will be contacting your group to discuss the findings.

I absolutely stand by the comments you refer to in The New Zealand Herald. Tag, as one stakeholder and as a group, represented a proportion of the population of Rodney that is small, around 7% locally, and 0.15% nationally (based on 2001 census figures). You have a media presence and are vocal compared to other groups, and this is a compliment. You are standing up for yourselves given that there are not many of you. This is commendable, and I do not understand how this reflects poorly on New Zealand Underwater. You are being consulted and I am aware of, and I understand your concerns.

The results of public discussion are analysed in the way that all other submission returns are analysed. Form Letters and Petitions are grouped together because they represent the views of one section of the population. This may well mean the results are different than what TAG may have anticipated, but this is the correct methodology. The process for analyzing submissions is the same as that employed by any other agency proposing the establishment of a new marine reserve. The guidebook is available from The Department of Conservation I should let you know, that the rights of access to a given area for a marine reserve are the same whether a reserve exists or not. Public access is permitted so that the opportunity to study, observe and record marine life in its natural habitat may be enjoyed in full measure. Under New Zealand law, certain activities within marine reserves are prohibited, but access would only be restricted if the welfare of marine life or the marine reserve is at risk.

Can you please explain how you feel that New Zealand Underwater has ignored a significant proportion if the Whangaparaoa Community and the public in their requests for more information? We have consulted widely and responded to all requests. Can you please supply me with a budget from TAG because we need to get some idea as to how you are funding your work?

I am sure that we can sit around the table before too long to discuss some boundary options. There is a need for some protection and as your group has noted on several occasions, you are not opposed to Marine Reserves. It was interesting that in Australia, the recent placement of 14 new marine reserves around Victoria's coastline, with every round of public consultation, the reserve areas got larger and more numerous. When the science and the information are circulated widely, this is what happens. We have no agenda for keeping the need for more marine protection local or small and I would be interested to see evidence that New Zealand Underwater made this claim prior to my arrival. The coastline, after all belongs to all New Zealanders including those who like areas to be protected, whether they live there or not. The social benefits of a marine reserve are well documented, and the Goat Island reserve generates 12 million dollars to the local economy annually. These values and potential for marine education, tourism and so on of this proposed reserve are great and long lasting. It seems extraordinary that it takes a group of people who have no vested interest, to fight long and hard for something that should be obvious to those of you who live there.

Perhaps confusion arises because our goal is to engender support locally for the marine reserve, because when it exists everyone in Rodney will be proud of it as they are of Goat Island Marine Reserve, this we know. When the locals own the reserve and are proud of it this is important for management. The reserve at Goat Island was created amongst an atmosphere of the most incredible opposition and took fifteen years while some people received death threats. Now that the reserve exists, the change in attitudes in Leigh mean that Leigh Lobster fishermen, once vehemently opposed to a reserve of any kind, now police and respect the reserve. Twenty-five years on, the sea is in greater decline, fishing pressure is greater and the need for marine protection is greater.

Networks of marine reserves are the key to protecting replicate and representative areas of the Hauraki Gulf and a reserve in the areas proposed around Tiritiri Matangi Island and Whangaparaoa link in well with Goat Island, Long Bay and Pollen Island. Networks are important because they mean that not all eggs are in one basket and allow the exchange of planktonic larval stages for invertebrates and fish. Networks also enhance the chances for migratory species to be protected.

I am sorry if you feel that things are progressing without you being in the loop. I can assure you that this is not the case, and we will continue to work together for Tiritiri. Collating the information and views of all the user groups is a large task for one person to coordinate, so I ask for your patience with respect to this proposal.

I look forward to your reply,

Yours sincerely,
Peter Crabb
Marine Biologist

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