SUBMISSION ON FORESHORE & SEABED

3 October 2003

Foreshore and Seabed Submissions

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

P O Box 55

Wellington

Introduction

The NZ Big Game Fishing Council (NZBGFC) was formed in 1957 to act as an umbrella group for sport fishing clubs and to organise a tournament that would attract anglers from around the world. Club membership has grown steadily and we now represent over 33,000 members in 61 clubs spread throughout NZ.

In the early 1980’s the NZBGFC was instrumental in establishing and funding the NZ Recreational Fishing Council to ensure better representation of non-commercial fishers at the national level. The NZRFC continues to be recognised in this role.

In 1996 NZBGFC helped establish the NZ Marine Research Foundation, which aims to sponsor research on the interactions between people and marine ecosystems to the benefit of all New Zealanders, including participants in ocean recreation.

Many of our most established fishing clubs have a focus on fishing for large pelagic species such as marlin, tuna, and sharks. In recent years our membership has expanded beyond the traditional deep sea angling clubs to include many local clubs targeting inshore species.

Four basic principles

1) Do the four principles cover the appropriate concepts, and provide a basis for legislation on the foreshore and seabed?

The members of the NZ Big Game Fishing Council support the general thrust of open access, Crown responsibility to regulate and recognition of customary use.

2) Should they be adjusted or amended in any way? Why?

Our members are adamant that the first principle should not be amended. "Open access and use for all New Zealanders" says it well. The Government needs to look at it’s own actions in restricting access and use of the marine environment and foreshore for traditional uses such as gathering seafood.

3) Are there other principles that could be useful? How might they assist?

Principle of access

4) Can you outline any further legal or practical limits on public access that have not been identified? If so, do they need to be addressed?

The area of foreshore held in private title where public access is restricted is insignificant compared to the 50 million hectares (10% of the EEZ) this Government is proposing to lock away from full public use under the Marine Reserves Bill.

The Department of Conservation seems to see it’s role in conservation is to restrict public access to public space. The Government needs to ensure that there are checks and balances outside DoC (like the concurrence role of the Minister of Fisheries in marine reserves) to ensure that their decision-making does not get captured by a single interest group.

5) Option 1: Do you consider it appropriate to legislate a general right of access across private titles, after giving private title holders an opportunity to seek an exemption?

No. The broad-brush approach can cause as many problems as it solves.

6) Option 2: Do you consider it appropriate for the Government to set in train a process to identify private interests that restrict public access, to decide if there would be public benefit in obtaining access, and to negotiate with the owners on ways to improve public access and use?

This is a better option as is can address areas where there are real issues and look for the best solutions. It may be more expensive but if well implemented should be worth it.

7) Are there any other approaches which you think should be considered? What are they?

Principle of protection

8) Do you have any practical examples of Maori customary interests in the foreshore and seabed that are still in practice, and have been since 1840, and are not already covered by legislation? (Note that customary fishing, including the taking of shellfish, is already provided for in legislation)

Mana and kaitiakitanga. Traditionally these used to mean exclusive control of an area, keeping other Iwi or hapu out and saying who, inside your hapu, had access to these resources. This level of exclusivity would disenfranchise the majority of New Zealanders, Maori and pakeha, and cannot be justified in the modern world.

9) Option 1: Do you consider it is appropriate to build on existing systems in current laws and practice to enable Maori customary interests to be acknowledged?

As stated in the discussion document – first define customary interest.

10) Option 2: Do you consider it is appropriate to design a new system to investigate and record Maori customary rights in the foreshore and seabed?

11) Should a new system be based in the Maori Land Court? If not, where should it be based?

12) Do you have any comments on how a new jurisdiction should operate?

13) Do you agree that customary rights should be able to be held by whanau, hapu and iwi?

14) What do you consider could be the effects of recording a customary right?

15) Should there be a new status created to acknowledge mana over, or ancestral association with, an area of foreshore and seabed?

16) Are there any other approaches that should be considered for enabling Maori customary interests to be acknowledged?

Principle of certainty

17) Are there other issues that will cause uncertainty or administrative difficulty? If so, how might they be addressed?

General

18) Are there any other issues you would like to comment on?

Through this process you will have seen how important access to the foreshore and marine environment is to New Zealanders. Recreational fishers want some certainty out of this process, and the review of recreational fishing rights, and the oceans policy development that we are not going to have our rights and access continually eroded.

Non-commercial fishers, Maori and pakeha, will not stand by and watch marine reserves, aquaculture management areas and unsustainable commercial fishing methods lock us out of the best fishing areas or degrade the fishing areas we have left. In the case of marine reserves and aquaculture developments our experience is that the "undue adverse effect" test in its current form is not delivering a sound decision making process or a process that is responsive to other users in the marine environment. In the case of commercial fishing the QMS has allowed the decimation of school fish by setnet and purse seine fishermen in the far north (eg. North Cape) and now a significant shift of trawl and purse seine effort into the Bay of Plenty.

Jeff Romeril

President

NZ Big Game Fishing Council