NEW ZEALAND RECREATIONAL FISHING COUNCIL 

Submission on 

Reviewing the Foreshore and Seabed

Act 2004

The Council and its Representation

1: The national organisations represented by this body are N.Z. Angling & Casting Association, N.Z. Trailer Boat Federation, N.Z. Marine Transport Association, N.Z. Sports Industry Association and N.Z. Underwater Association. We also support the Ministry led and funded recreational forums of which many of these regional members are now members as individuals.

2: The Council maintains close contact with a number of Iwi representatives. While every effort has been made to consult we do not suggest that this submission is representative of their views.

3: This Council represents over 86,000 recreational and sustenance amateur fishers. In addition by default we represent the public interest in the fishery and those amateur fishers who are non-members. We say by default because we are the only constituted representative body that has been recognised by Government and the Courts of doing so.

4: Over one million people or by recent Ministry of Fisheries figures 20% of New Zealanders fish for sport or sustenance. This does not include those elderly or infirmed amateur fishers who can no longer actively participate in catching seafood for the table. The 1996 research to provide estimates of Recreational and Sustenance Harvest Estimates found that there are approx 1.35 million and increasing recreational and sustenance amateur fishers in New Zealand and therefore we effectively, through our associated member groups, and lack of any other democratically elected or statutory recognised group represent this number also.

5: The Council has been recognised in three court cases as representing the recreational and amateur fishers of New Zealand. The Council was attached to two of these cases without its prior knowledge and the court papers show it was ordered, “to represent the recreational fishing public of New Zealand”. The first of these was the order of attachment to the High Court Action on the Manukau, Taiapure application. The second relates to the SNA1 challenge of the Minister’s decision that was heard by the High Court. The Council also holds “Approved Party Status” for consultations with the Ministry of Fisheries and is recognised by them and the Minister of Fisheries as a stakeholder group. In the third case this Council along with the NZ Big Game Fishing Council were the applicants in the recent Kahawai case.

6: The Council has a Board of democratically elected officers and members. The Council consults with its members and the public using various means. These include newsletters, both written and electronic, its web site and various press releases. In addition it consults through the various fishing media and meetings it holds and receives input through those forums.

7: This submission has been prepared and presented after consultation via email and our web site to our members and board members.

8: As previously stated, we are aware that many of our National Affiliates and Regional Members are submitting their own submissions and in most cases we have seen and support these submissions where they are not in direct conflict with this submissions intent or requested outcome.

9: In the submission we talk of both recreational and amateur fishers as these two descriptions are so intertwined. For sake of some clarity recreational fishers referred to are generally those who have an interest in supporting recreational fishing interests while amateur refers to all fishers who exercise their rights to fish under the amateur fishing regulations.

10: Introduction

We would like to thank the attorney-generals office for including us in this consultation. It effectively sets out plans for a large degree of co-management of parts of New Zealand.  For most New Zealanders this would be considered the most valuable piece of real estate in our country. The challenge for us all is to ensure that the legislation that follows is balanced and the outcomes will ensure that the public’s rights of access are not diminished by the processes of time or change or the giving to any one party preferential and exclusive rights or ownership.

11: The Foreshore and Seabed Act The document describes the area as being those waters from mean high water springs out to the 12-mile or 22km out from any coastline and includes the air above and the land below. This is a very large area, well over 100,000sq km, or more than a third of New Zealand's 300,000sq km land area. The area and its capability for mineral recovery, including iron-sand, aquaculture, recreation and commerce is of major strategic interest to all New Zealanders. In spite of National's desire for certainty, the documents give no estimate of the key issue - how much of this area will receive customary title? All of it, half of it, or none of it? And only Maori can participate in this privatization.

12: Some coastal occupations by Iwi, prior to 1840, which obliterated original tribes, were as short as 15 years. Non-Maori are not eligible, even though some of their occupations of the foreshore, for example the Star Boating Club in Wellington Harbour, which has been there for over 120 years. The Williams family at Tatapouri since the first settlers arrived and there are many more examples. This race-based resource privatization may be politically popular with Iwi/hapu. But not with anyone else, especially the 95 per cent of New Zealanders who abhor Maori separatism. From 1840 until now, the Crown has owned the foreshore and seabed, as a public common, and has managed it for all New Zealanders. The court decisions in the Ngati Apa case in 2003 did not say that customary title to the foreshore and seabed existed, only that it might exist.

12: The government seems to have ditched any preference for simply restoring the right of Iwi to explore customary title at the High Court under the common law. Instead it has provided us with two sets of right: territorial rights “otherwise known as customary title” and non-territorial. The current test that applies for proving territorial rights appears to be weakened in the document.  This lesser right will see most of New Zealand’s present coastline fall into customary title through the changes of hapu needing to have unbroken title to the land as opposed to having exclusive use of the area. Is this the intension of this legislation?  Also Europeans who have occupied coastal land since 1840 are not provided for within the proposed legislation.  This needs to be rectified. Our concerns are heightened when we read that this very valuable piece of real estate will be held in the public domain where nobody owns it.  This area is eager for the use of developers, if no one owns it, who will control any development that is proposed. Under this proposal Iwi gain a lot of legal rights they don’t have already.  One of them would be the right of veto over consents for coastal permits given by either the regional council, or even Ministers of the crown. By the same token there will be no obligation on a coastal hapu to comply with the requirements of the Resource Management Act when giving or declining permission for a coastal permit.

13: As declining economic times continue to bite, we are seeing and will continue to see more and more people looking to the foreshore and seabed as a source of food to feed their families, this must remain open and free of charge. We see this as the government’s role to ensure these rights are maintained.  With the crown being responsible for making sure that the public aren’t going to be charged for “use”.

14: We agree with the enshrining of the existing rights of public access and navigation i.e. public safety on wharves, ports and boat ramps.  However the security of the use of safe havens as of right remains unclear. The legislation proposes to protect the existing rights of private owners, until current leases, licences or occupational rights expire.  What will happen and who gets to have the last say remains unclear.  These people need some assurance that things will not change.

15: In the present legislation the public were protected “by guaranteeing public access now and in the future” Any erosion of these basic rights would deny the public of its common law rights.  The very reason the Act was established in the first place.

16: This document is clearly designed to meet the government’s commitment to the Maori Party. In doing so it may open a festering sore again, although the government has stated that retaining the status quo or a modification of it is one option. Unfortunately, the “awards” are not clearly spelled out, nor is any effect on non-Maori discussed. Under National’s proposal, Iwi gain a lot of legal rights they don’t have already. One of them would be the right of veto over consents for coastal permits given by either the regional council, or even Ministers of the Crown.

17: The issues surrounding liability are not addressed. Customary awards or title still confers rights or ownership, so confusion will remain. The document proposes no clear ownership on behalf of the public.

18: Any privatisation of the seabed and foreshore, or allocation to the treasures they contain, based on race would be the most retrograde step possible and a disaster for nation.

19: The bottom line for the NZ Recreational Fishing Council is that any move that will now, or at any time in the future, limit the general rights of all New Zealanders to free and open access to the foreshore and seabed; including the right of access, the right of free passage, the right of sustenance fishing, or the right of safe anchorage, in any part of the foreshore and seabed of New Zealand will be vigorously opposed.

20: Given the above comments and the ongoing level of uncertainty, we believe that the status quo in retaining the existing Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 may well prove to be the best outcome for most New Zealanders.

Yours faithfully,

NEW ZEALAND RECREATIONAL FISHING COUNCIL

Sheryl Hart

Secretary