TIRITIRI ACTION GROUP

Friday 4 July 2003

New Zealand Underwater Association Inc.,
PO Box 875 Mt Eden
AUCKLAND

Attention Peter Crabb

Dear Peter

Budget for Proposed Tiritiri Matangi Marine Reserve

A copy of the budget details provided to Trish Rea was distributed to each member of the TAG committee for comment. Frankly, their response has been unanimously disappointment and disbelief that the NZUA felt it is a credible document.

• The NZUA sponsored initiative to promote the marine reserve has been established for at least two to three years according to sources from within your organisation. It would be reasonable to assume that your Membership has not only approved the initiative, but also the annual budgets. However, the prolonged delay in providing the budget details inevitably raises serious doubts or a least suspicions from our perspective, that it has been deliberate!
  
• It is a matter of record that the Department of Conservation and Project AWARE are supporting the NZUA initiative both financially and technically. A budget of $110k is a substantial commitment, yet there is no breakdown of the source of these funds. It is doubtful that the NZUA Members are altruistic enough to contribute significantly to these.
  
• A lot of emphasis has been given in your promotional propaganda to the scientific benefits of establishing the reserve. It is strange that you have yet to determine the fees for the consultants who will be needed to produce the supporting evidence.
  
• A breakdown of the costs allocated to 'printing, advertising and public notification' would have helped clarify the confusion created by the conflicting statements made by NZUA and DoC spokespersons early in the year.
  
• 'Salaries' and 'Overheads' are other significant budget items that have not been explained. As you are already a part-time, but salaried employee of NZUA, it would indicate that there are or will be more personnel involved. In for the long haul?

In summary Peter, the budget details as presented to us, lack credibility and substance. The TAG Committee may not support the NZUA in its current marine reserve initiative, but this viewpoint is shared by a significant number of the local community whom we represent. Responding to a valid request for information the way you have, reflects badly on the organisation you represent. Pressure of the commitments associated with the recent NZUA Jubilee celebrations, may have been a contributing factor to the paucity of detail. In the circumstances, we trust that you will now have the time to provide us with the information requested.

Separately, Trish Rea will provide you with a list of the TAG Committee of unpaid volunteers.

In the meantime, we look forward to receiving an early response to our renewed request.

Yours sincerely

Rex Smith
(Chairman TAG Committee)

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