The Silent Majority
31 August 2001
Dear [ subscriber ]
Hamilton Boat Show
Starting (Thursday 30/8/01) - option4 team members will be there.
A dedicated team, led by Trish Rea, are on deck at the Ramco stand.
Thank you Bill Mackerill of Ramco Boats for your very real support.
What’s been going on.
We are conscious of the lack of information flowing to you, option4
supporters, the very reason for our existence. The debate/process
has however been ongoing and intense, and for good reasons, subject
to a little Government control.
In May the Minister asked option4 to nominate individuals to join
what was being named the Ministerial Advisory Group. This was subsequently
formed as the Ministerial Consultative Group (MCG) – the purpose
of which was/is to offer the Minister a sounding board for Ministry
generated policy recommendations.
The first MCG meeting in Wellington on 25/6/01 with nine recreational
representatives drawn from option4, Rec Fishing Council, New Zealand
Big Game Fishing Council, a charter operator and a Maori Customary
representative. The meeting commenced with significant discussion
regards confidentiality. option4 were uncomfortable with any level
of gagging or confidentiality agreement which precluded wider discussion
with involved and affected parties. The Minister recognised our
concern and agreed that papers presented and discussed were available
to be shared with those whom the MCG participants felt they needed
to consult with. It was confirmed that “who said what”
would remain confidential (Chatham House Rules) in order to foster
open and candid debate and prevent future recriminations at a personal
level. The Minister is to be acknowledged for his understanding
and consent to our request.
The Ministry personnel attending then presented three “Draft
Working Papers” for consideration structured as follows:
1. Improved information
2. Management structure
3. Define rights
In effect those attending were being presented with draft policy
ideas and formulations on how the rights of recreational anglers
could be strengthened and enhanced. In addition, ideas on management
regimes and structures were advanced and the method through which
recreational catches could be better measured.
A response to these papers was requested by the Minister and after
further general discussion the meeting ended with representatives
analysing and talking about the papers late into the night. There
were mixed views on the subject matter and consensus was not immediately
apparent on many of the proposals. However, it was at least something
to get our collective teeth into.
The 9 days following this meeting saw a massive effort go in by
the “option4 wider consultative network” to respond
in writing to those Draft Working Papers. The New Zealand Big Game
Fishing Council (NZBGFC) delivered a very well reasoned set
of responses as well. The attendees drawn from the RFC submitted
individual responses. It must be remembered that attendees were
not seen as being recreational “group” representatives
in the eyes of the Minister at this time. Both option4 and the NZBGFC
however have always seen our roles as representatives of our groups
and not the individual participation as suggested by the Minister.
The second MCG meeting on 10/7/01 saw the “sounding board”
responses acknowledged briefly by the Minister. There was concern
by non-recreational attendees that the recreational response was
not per their expectations. The Minister recognised that option4
and others were clearly not accepting of the proposals that Ministry
were promoting and wished to advance the discussion to achieve consensus.
For the record, option4 determined that we were facing a policy
drafted on the principles of options 2 and 3 from “Soundings”
which we understood had clearly been discarded by the volume of
option4 supporters. The Draft Policy document was then “taken
off the table” at the request of the Minister. Discussion
then proceeded with the Labour Party’s 1989 Recreational Fishing
Policy - “Moyle’s
Promise” - being put on the table by option4. This was
in response to the Minister asking what it was that we DID agree
with! Attendees were genuinely elated at such a major breakthrough.
There appeared to be acceptance of the principles of this paper
(check it out on our website
) and the meeting concluded with the attendees being requested to
produce further written submissions on what would be acceptable
policy or legislative changes to satisfy the recreational lobby.
Discussion on the “right” was also held and attendees
were advised that certain changes to the Fisheries Act had already
impacted on any common law right such that there was no longer the
said provision. Again further private and group discussion were
held after the Minister’s departure some extending into the
wee small hours……
Detailed discussion and the now common e-dialogue commenced the
next day. The sense of optimism and genuine feeling that progress
was being made was soured when a modicum of research by one of our
members revealed that the s89 statement was substantially
incorrect and had no legal founding. Concerns over why this had
been raised became the topic of many discussions and emails. A meeting
with option4 legal council was quickly arranged and our fears were
substantiated. Discussions on all legal avenues was explored and
noted for future reference. It was realised that we were again doing
Ministry’s work for them. To further assure ourselves of the
legalities relating to our actual legal rights a meeting was convened
in Auckland to which all recreational groups involved in the MCG
were invited. Additional guests attended and the meeting centred
on an expert on the 1996 Fisheries Act who must remain nameless.
To ensure that nothing was missed the entire meeting was captured
on video. Again we were advised that our rights were much stronger
than we had been previously advised and it was recommended that
we resisted any changes to the current and imminent legislation
coming into force. Accordingly, we did not submit to the Minister’s
request to deliver our thoughts on legislative changes and alterations
at the next MCG held on 30/7/01 and had to advise him of why. He
again accepted our concerns and advised that without consensus he
would find it difficult to proceed.
We then requested that a summit meeting be held comprising of a
full day in Auckland where the issues could be properly presented
and our thoughts could be further refined. This meeting is still
to be held but is scheduled for the first week in September. In
addition, option4 has held another full day meeting to further investigate
our legislative position and to explore strategies for the summit
meeting. An option4 member has thoroughly researched International
law and Fisheries Treaties to which New Zealand is a signatory and
has also discovered a wealth of research and information on fisheries
management techniques and tools. The singular disturbing fact to
emerge from two weeks of full time work is that there is a massive
lack or indeed absence of information relating to the rights of
individuals to fish in the sea. There are hundreds of research documents
on Maori and Indigenous people’s rights but next to nothing
on anyone else’s. We are apparently the silent majority.
option4 are committed to seeing this process through and are ourselves
frustrated at our inability to more fully communicate the real detail.
However, work will shortly commence on extensions within the web
site to include a “Knowledge Basket” which will allow
supporters to explore the legislation and the issues as far as they
desire. This will include summaries of International Treaties and
copies of important research papers relating to our fisheries and
a copy of the entire Fisheries Act itself, including amendments.
As stated previously, the summit meeting will be held soon and option4
will produce an update of the meeting as quickly as is possible.
Until then, remember that you can’t catch a fish without having
a line in the water (preferably with a hook attached to it!).
Scott Macindoe and Bill Ross