NZ Underwater
PO Box 875
Mt Eden
AUCKLAND

Email: peter@nzunderwater.org.nz

Friday 22 August 2003

Re: Failure to respond to budget and analysis request

Dear Peter

TAG has not received an acknowledgement or response from you regarding our letter dated July 4 th 2003 (copy attached).

TAG is not only concerned at the delay in publishing the analysis of the submissions to the NZUA proposal, but has a number of additional questions we would like you to answer as follows -

• It was interesting to read comments attributed to you in the NZ Herald last week (15 August). Would you please explain the statement when referring to submissions, " around 85 per cent when measured in the way DoC does it".
• What process does this refer to?
• Could we please have a copy of the process that NZUA has employed to analyse the submissions?
• Who is doing the analysis of the submissions?
• What is their background in statistical analysis?
• What is their association with NZUA, DoC or Forest and Bird?
• When will the analysis of submissions be available for public comment?
• Will you please send TAG a copy of the analysis?

In the same NZ Herald article you are reported as saying there will be a second round of consultation with stakeholders. When is this round scheduled for? Who are these stakeholders? Will you be contacting TAG directly?

The Tiritiri Action Group has tried to maintain a level of professionalism when dealing with your organisation. You stressed on many occasions the delay in response to our requests was due to your part time status with NZUA. To read your comment about a "small, vocal" community in Whangaparaoa opposing your plan is insulting and an affront to those genuinely concerned about their access rights to the area. It was your organisation that encouraged the public at the meeting held at the Hibiscus Coast Boating Club to keep the issue local. To turn on this same community and call it small and vocal reflects poorly on NZUA.

To date the NZUA has chosen to ignore a significant proportion of the Whangaparaoa community and the wider public in their requests for more information.

Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and forward a copy of the complete budget for the Tiritiri Matangi marine reserve proposal together with the analysis of public submissions, as previously requested by TAG and agreed by you.

Yours faithfully
Rex Smith
TAG
Chairman

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