Agenda of Te Taitokerau Māori and Council Working Party

Te Taitokerau Māori and Council Working Party ITEM: 3.6

12 September 2019Attachment 1

Hapū Mana Whakahono ā Rohe

Guide to this doccument

· The original wording is what was informally agreed by Council as a starting point for discussions.

· The tracked changes (underlining and ~~strike through~~) are the changes proposed by TTMAC.

· The green tracked changes are further changes recommended by staff.

· Very minor changes or structural changes haven’t been shown as tracked changes.

· Staff recommend council adopt the changes proposed (unless otherwise stated).

Definitions:

“The hapū” – means an individual hapū signatory

1. Karakia

2. Whakatauaki

3. Mihi

4. <Add translation> | Agreement foundations

§ 4.1 Te Tiriti o Waitangi

Te Taitokerau hapū are extremely passionate about their heritage and give regard to Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the founding document of this country. It recognises a partnership between Māori and the Crown, and for Māori, further cements the intent of He Whakaputanga o Te Rangatiratanga o Nū Tīreni (1835 Declaration of Independence).

He Whakaputanga o Te Rangatiratanga o Nū Tīreni (Declaration of Independence) and Te Tiriti o Waitangi provide the foundation doctrines of authority and partnership that are being sought by hapū in Government, including Local Government.

§ 4.2 Te Pae Tawhiti | Vision

“He waka hourua, eke noa” - “A ~~re-adzed~~ double hulled ~~voyaging~~ canoe ~~upon which everyone may~~ embarking on a voyage ~~with~~ of unity”

This whakatauki is a metaphor that represents:

§ Partnership.

§ A challenging journey requiring determination and collaboration.

§ The application of Te Ao Māori in our journey e.g. the wairua dimension.

§ Understanding, caring for and adapting to our natural environment.

§ Self-reliance and a sustainable economy.

§ 4.3 Kaupapa | Context

Te Mana Whakahono ā Rohe is a binding statutory arrangement that provides for a structured relationship under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) between tangata whenua and councils.

The intent of Te Mana Whakahono ā Rohe is to improve working relationships between Tangata Whenua and Councils, and to enhance Māori participation in RMA decision-making processes, acknowledging that statutorily RMA decision making resides with councils.

Te Mana Whakahono ā Rohe does not replace the legal requirements for Te Mana Whakahono ā Rohe between the Northland Regional Council and Iwi authorities.

Te Mana Whakahono ā Rohe cannot limit any statutory requirements set out in Māori settlement legislation or any other legislation that provides a role for Māori in processes under the RMA (e.g., particular rights recognised under the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011).

§ 4.4 <Add translation> | Parties

Te Mana Whakahono ā Rohe is between the Northland Regional Council the following hapū:

· <signatory x >, date of signing: <add date> - refer Schedule 1 for the statement by <add hapū>

· <signatory y>, date of signing: <add date> - refer Schedule 2 for the statement by <add hapū>

§ 4.5 <Add translation> | Relationship statement – Northland Regional Council

§ ~~4.6 <Add translation> | Relationship statement – hapū Hapū statement~~

~~This section is where each hapū can make their own statements. This could include:~~

· ~~their view of the relationship with council,~~

· ~~the reasons for entering the agreement,~~

· ~~any caveats to entering the agreement, or~~

· ~~references to existing agreements with council (e.g. an MOU) and an explanation of the existing agreement relates to the manawhakahono a rohe.~~

§ 4.7 Relationship principles

These are the principles that have guided the development of Te Mana Whakahono ā Rohe and will continue to guide the relationship between the Northland Regional Council and the signatories:

§ working together in good faith and in a spirit of co-operation

§ communicating with each other in an open, transparent, and honest manner

§ recognising and acknowledging the benefit of working together by sharing each other’s respective vision, aspirations and expertise

§ the Treaty of Waitangi Principles^{^[1]}

5. <Add translation> | Agreement

The Northland Regional Council and the hapū agree:

· to meet all the obligations and commitments made in Te Mana Whakahono ā Rohe.

· cover their own costs to meet the obligations and commitments (unless otherwise stated).

Any obligation or commitment in a particular circumstance may be varied with the agreement of the Northland Regional Council and the relevant hapū.

6. <Add translation> | Regional plan and regional policy statement - processes and participation

Regional plans and regional policy statements are the primary regulatory tools in the Northland Regional Council’s tool box for managing the use of natural and physical resources in Northland ~~and include objectives, policies and methods relevant to tangata whenua.~~

Regional policy statements provide an overview of the significant resource management issues of the region and objectives, policies and methods to achieve integrated management of the natural and physical resources of the region. It includes direction on tangata whenua participation in decision making plan development, consents and monitoring.

The Regional Plans includes objectives, policies and rules for the following matters:

· Soil conservation

· Water quality and quantity

· Aquatic ecosystems

· Biodiversity

· Natural hazards

· Discharge of contaminants

· Allocation of natural resources

· Assessing impact on tangata whenua values.

§ 6.1 <Add translation> | Hapū Environmental Management Plans (HEMPs)

6.1.1 <Add translation> | Background

Hapū Environmental Management Plans (HEMPs) may include:

· Whakapapa (genealogy) and rohe (area of interest)

· environmental, cultural, economic and spiritual aspirations and values

· areas of cultural and historical significance

· outline how the hapū expects to be involved in the management, development and protection of resources

· expectations for engagement and participation in RMA processes.

The RMA requires HEMPs to be taken into account when preparing or changing regional policy statements and regional and district plans - provided they have been recognised by an iwi authority and lodged with the council. They can also provide important guidance in the assessment of resource consent applications and other council functions.

6.1.2 <Add translation> | The agreement

The Northland Regional Council will:

· Provide a contestable fund of at least $20,000 per year as a fund to assist Tangata Whenua to develop or review their ~~hap~~ū environmental management plans ^{^[2]}.

· Set criteria for applications to the fund.

· If the ~~Where a~~ hapū has lodged a HEMP with the Northland Regional Council:

o When preparing a plan change^{^[3]}, the Northland Regional Council will provide the hapū with a written assessment of how the HEMP was taken into account in a draft plan change, and will provide at least 20 working days for the hapū to provide written comment back to the Northland Regional Council on the assessment and the draft plan change.

o Record in the Section 32 report for all plan changes how relevant HEMPs have been taken into account when preparing or changing a policy statement or plan (as required by sections 61 and 66, RMA), and will report on any comments made by the hapū on the draft plan change in relation to the HEMP.

o The Northland Regional Council will, in all resource consent decision documents for activities within the rohe of the hapū, record the HEMP and will provide a summary of how the HEMP was considered.

The hapū will:

· If applying to the contestable fund, demonstrate how the application meets the criteria.

· Provide the Northland Regional Council with a copy of any draft HEMP the hapū develops (and intends to lodge with the Northland Regional Council) and allow the Northland Regional Council at least 20 working days to provide comment.

· Provide the Northland Regional Council with an electronic copy of any HEMP they produce and want to be taken into account in resource management decisions.

· Provide evidence of endorsement from the hapū of any HEMP they provide to the Northland Regional Council.

· ~~Provide evidence that the relevant iwi authority recognises the EMP.~~

· Agree to the Northland Regional Council recording on its website an electronic copy of any ~~their~~ HEMP provided to the Northland Regional Council and a map showing the geographic extent of the HEMP.

6.2 <Add translation> | Identifying sites or areas of significance (SOS)

6.2.2 <Add translation> | Background

The Regional Plan includes:

(a) a set of rules and policies for the protection of SOS.

(b) criteria a SOS must meet to be considered and/or included in the Regional Plan.

The Regional Plan can only include SOS in freshwater or the costal marine area. SOS on land are covered in district plans.

There are currently only a few SOS recorded in the Regional Plan. Hapū may want to add additional SOS to the Regional Plan to get the benefit of protection from the rules and policies.

The only way a SOS can be added to the Regional Plan is by a plan change. A plan change is a process set out in the RMA which requires notification, ability for people to make submissions and hearings.

6.2.3 <Add translation> | The agreement

The Northland Regional Council will:

· Provide the hapū with advice on the preparation of the processes and documentation required to meet the SOS criteria in the Regional Plan.

· Provide GIS assistance to the hapū to map their SOS (noting that staff resources may be limited at times through availability).

· Include any SOS provided by the hapū to the Northland Regional Council, which meets the Regional Plan criteria (as determined by the Northland Regional Council) and has the necessary supporting documentation, in the next relevant plan change to the Regional Plan as determined by the Northland Regional Council.

The hapū will:

· Give at least 40 working days notice of any request by the hapū for GIS assistance to map SOS. This will allow time for the Northland Regional Council to plan the work around other commitments.

· Ensure that any SOS provided to the council for inclusion in the Regional Plan includes:

o Documentation to demonstrate how the SOS meets the criteria in the Regional Plan (Policy D.1.5)

o A map of the SOS

o A worksheet for the SOS consistent with the worksheet used for existing SOS in the Regional Plan.

· Provide the Northland Regional Council a minimum of 20 working days for the opportunity to comment on the draft documentation supporting a SOS before it is formally lodged with the Northland Regional Council.

· When submitting a proposed SOS to be included in the Regional Plan, provide at least one contact who will be available to talk with people who may be impacted by the SOS.

· Put forward an expert on the SOS who will be available to provide advice (at no cost to the Northland Regional Council) on the SOS e.g. at a hearing or preparing evidence for the Environment Court.

6.3 <Add translation> | Policy statement and plan-change prioritisation

6.3.2 <Add translation> | Background

The Northland Regional Council prioritises the preparation or change of a policy statement or plan based on many factors including environmental risks, national requirements ~~and~~ available resourcing~~. Another factor is~~ and the priorities expressed by the community and tangata whenua.

6.3.3 <Add translation> | The agreement

The Northland Regional Council will:

· Provide an opportunity to hapū to share their views with the Northland Regional Council on their priorities for changes to the Regional Plan or Regional Policy Statement. This opportunity will be provided every three years prior to the notification of the draft Long Term Plan for submissions. (The Long Term Plan sets out the Northland Regional Councils services, activities and finances. It is updated every three years).

· Upon request of the hapū, provide a written statement summarising how changes to the Regional Plan or Regional Policy Statement set out in the Long Term Plan were determined.

The hapū will:

· If providing the Northland Regional Council with their views on priorities for changes to the Regional Plan or Regional Policy Statement, set out:

o An explanation of why the hapū consider the changes are a priority.

o Provide suggested wording changes to the Regional Plan or Regional Policy Statement (even if just in general terms) that are consistent with the form and structure of the Regional Plan or Regional Policy Statement.

o ~~Evidence of endorsement from the~~ ~~hapū.~~

6.4 Consultation when preparing or change of a proposed policy statement or plan

6.4.2 <Add translation> | Background

There are many benefits to consultation with Tangata Whenua including:

· identifying resource management issues of relevance

· identifying ways to achieve Tangata Whenua objectives in RMA plans

· providing for their relationship with their culture and traditions with ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu, and other taonga as set out in s6(e) of the RMA

· ensuring all actual and potential environmental effects are identified

· providing Tangata Whenua with active involvement in the exercise of kaitiakitanga

The Treaty of Waitangi provides for the exercise of Kawanatanga, while actively protecting Tino Rangatiratanga of Tangata Whenua in respect of their natural, physical and spiritual resources. When acting under the RMA councils and Tangata Whenua must take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (s8). Similar obligations are imposed on councils under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

Statutory obligations and case law developed under the RMA have helped to translate how the obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi are to be given effect to in practice. Consultation, or the need to consult, arises from the principle of partnership in the Treaty of Waitangi - this requires the partners to act reasonably and to make informed decisions.

6.4.3 <Add translation> | The agreement

For every regional plan or regional policy statement change or preparation, the Northland Regional Council will:

· Ask hapū for their views on how consultation with Tangata Whenua should be carried out. This will occur prior to the first time the Northland Regional Council carries out any public consultation (e.g. release of an issues and options paper or draft plan change) and ideally during the project planning for the change or preparation.

· Prepare a Tangata Whenua consultation plan which sets out how the Northland Regional Council will consult with tangata whenua (either stand alone or part of a wider consultation or engagement plan).

· Provide a copy of the draft Tangata Whenua consultation plan to hapū and provide 20 working days for the hapū to make any comments.

· Provide a copy of the final tangata whenua consultation plan to hapū ~~upon request~~.

The hapū will:

· Provide any comments on the draft Tangata Whenua consultation plan to the Northland Regional Council no later than 20 working 10 days after receipt.

6.5 Regional plan and policy statement hearing panel

6.5.2 <Add translation> | Background

The role of the hearing panel is to make recommendations to council on what changes should be made to the proposed wording of a change to a regional plan or regional policy statement.

In most instances, the hearing panel will include hearings commissioners, who are people with specialist expertise (e.g. water quality, planning and /or Te Ao Māori and Tikanga Māori).

6.5.3 <Add translation> | The agreement

The Northland Regional Council will:

· Maintain a set of criteria to be used when appointing an independent Māori commissioner (e.g. a commissioner with an understanding of Te Ao Māori/ Māori concepts and values associated with natural and physical resources, knowledge of tikanga Māori and a process for identifying conflict of interests).

· When preparing or reviewing the criteria to be used to when appointing a Māori commissioner, invite the hapū to provide their views on the criteria.

· If the Northland Regional Council chooses to appoint a Māori commissioner:

o The hapū will be invited to nominate one candidate.

o The Northland Regional Council will assess all the candidates (including those nominated by the hapū) against the criteria.

o The Northland Regional Council will inform the hapū of the selection of the successful candidate.

· If the Northland Regional Council intends to not appoint a Māori commissioner, then the Northland Regional Council with communicate this to the hapū including the reasons why ~~a Māori~~ ~~commissioner is not intended to be appointed~~.

The hapū will:

· ~~If requesting that a Māori commissioner be appointed, outline the reasons why.~~

· If nominating a candidate for a Māori values commissioner, include an assessment of the candidate against the criteria.

6.6 Regional plan and policy statement hearings

6.6.2 <Add translation> | Background

The RMA provides a lot of flexibility for the running of hearings for regional plans and regional policy statements. This includes where hearings are held and the process for running the hearing.

The RMA requires that when a hearing is held, tikanga Māori must be recognised where appropriate, and evidence can be written or spoken in Māori^{^[4]}.

It is common practice for councils to hold some of the hearings on a marae.

6.6.3 <Add translation> | The agreement

The Northland Regional Council will, for any regional plan or regional policy statement hearing:

· Ask the hapū whether the hearings (or part of) should be held on a marae, and if so, which marae.

· Consider the advice from hapū when making a decision as to when and if part or all of a hearing will be heard on a marae and which marae.

The hapū will, if proposing a particular marae for a hearing:

· Outline the reasons why all or part of a hearing should be heard on the marae.

· Take into account the submitters (e.g. the number or submitters likely to attend if part of the hearing is on the marae, the geographic spread of the submitters and the costs to submitters of attending the hearing).

· Set out any particular tikanga that should be observed (e.g. because of the subject matter, people involved, or location).

7. <Add translation> | Monitoring opportunities

7.1 State of the environment and Mātauranga Māori monitoring

7.1.2 <Add translation> | Background

The Northland Regional Council monitors the state of Northland’s environment. Northland Regional Council does not currently have a Mātauranga Māori-based environmental monitoring programme in place.

The use of Mātauranga Māori is a key opportunity for greater recognition of the role of hapū in the management of natural and physical resources. Opportunities for hapū to operationalise Mātauranga Māori in contemporary environmental monitoring allows them to realise a number of aspirations including fulfilling their obligations as kaitiaki and providing for the retention and transfer of traditional knowledge to successive generations. When hapū are leading these discussions they can ensure that Mātauranga Māori is protected from misuse and misappropriation.

7.1.3 <Add translation> | The agreement

~~Should the Northland Regional Council decide to develop a Mātauranga Māori-based environmental monitoring framework it will provide opportunities for~~ ~~hap~~ū ~~signatories to have input into its development.~~

The Northland Regional Council will:

· Upon request of the hapū, ~~Hap~~ū ~~may request to~~ meet with the hapū ~~Northland Regional Council~~ to discuss:

o The state of the environment monitoring (current and planned) in their rohe

o Any aspirations the hapū has to undertake ~~Undertaking~~ state of the environment monitoring on council’s behalf

o The potential to accompany ~~Accompanying~~ council officers when they undertake state of the environment monitoring

o Any aspirations the hapū has for council ~~How council can~~ support of mātauranga Māori based environmental monitoring, including:

§ Financial support

§ Input into the design of any council supported regional Mātauranga Māori based environmental monitoring framework

§ Providing information and advice to assist hapū with their mātauranga Māori based environmental monitoring

§ Providing training to hapū

§ Incorporating the results and recommendations of hapū monitoring in council’s monitoring reports.

· ~~The meeting will include~~ Ensure the Northland Regional Council’s Group Manager responsible for state of the environment monitoring attends the meeting.

· Provide a written response to the matters discussed at the meeting, no later than 30 working days after the meeting.

Note: To be clear - the Northland Regional Council is not committing to deliver on any of the monitoring matters the hapū wishes to discuss.

· Should the Northland Regional Council decide to support a regional Mātauranga Māori-based environmental monitoring framework, it will ensure the hapū have opportunities to have input into its development and implementation.

7.2 Resource consent monitoring

7.2.2 <Add translation> | Background

The Northland Regional Council must monitor compliance with resource consent conditions and their impact on the environment. There is the ability to involve hapū in resource consent monitoring including (for example) undertaking monitoring on council’s behalf or accompanying council officers to monitor compliance. However, for this to happen there are issues that would need to be worked through, including capacity, health and safety requirements and legal issues of delegating authority to undertake council’s monitoring functions.

7.2.3 <Add translation> | The agreement

The Northland Regional Council will:

· Upon request of the hapū, ~~may request to~~ meet with the hapū ~~Northland Regional Council~~ to discuss the potential for people nominated by the hapū to be involved in monitoring compliance with resource consent conditions. This could include undertaking monitoring on council’s behalf or accompanying council officers to monitor compliance.

· Ensure the ~~The meeting will include the~~ Northland Regional Council’s ~~Regulatory Services~~ Group Manager responsible for resource consent monitoring attends the meeting.

· Provide a written response to the request no later than 30 working days after the meeting.

The hapū will:

· provide a report to the Northland Regional Council at least 10 working days prior to the meeting with the Northland Regional Council, ~~the hap~~ū ~~will~~ which outlines:

o The proposal.

o The reasons for the proposal.

o If the proposal includes undertaking resource consent compliance monitoring on council’s behalf, it must include an outline of capability and capacity to undertake the monitoring and what the benefits would be for undertaking the monitoring (instead of council staff).

~~The Northland Regional Council will provide a written response to the request no later than 30 working days after the meeting.~~

7.3 Review of the regional plan and regional policy statement

7.3.2 <Add translation> | Background

The Northland Regional Council is required by the RMA to review the Regional Plan and the Regional Policy Statement every five years (section 35). The review assesses whether the provisions are fit for purpose and whether any changes should be made. One of the matters considered when undertaking a review are Hapū Environmental Management Plans (HEMPs).

7.3.3 <Add translation> | The agreement

The Northland Regional Council will:

· ~~The Northland Regional Council will~~ Fund an independent^{^[5]} planner with expertise in Māori perspectives to undertake a review of the Regional Plan and Regional Policy Statement when required by the RMA. The scope of the independent planner’s review will be to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the document being reviewed to implement Tangata Whenua aspirations.

· Invite the hapū ~~will be invited~~ to nominate one candidate for the independent planner’s role.

· ~~The Northland Regional Council will~~ Assess all the candidates (there may a range of candidates e.g. nominated by other hapū or iwi organisations) ~~(including those nominated by hapū )~~.

· Appoint the independent planner ~~will be appointed by the Northland Regional Council~~.

· ~~The Northland Regional Council will~~ Inform the hapū of the selection of the successful candidate and the reasons for that decision.

· Invite the hapū ~~will be invited~~ to a hui to discuss the document being reviewed. The outcomes from the hui will be recorded as part of the independent planner’s review.

· Ask the hapū ~~will also be asked~~ to provide any written comments they may have on the document being reviewed. The hapū will have up to 30 working days to provide written comments from the date of the invitation for written comments.

· The independent planners review will include an assessment of the hui outcomes, HEMPs, and any other relevant information that may inform tangata whenua perspectives of the document being reviewed (e.g. settlement legislation).

· The draft report from the independent planner will be circulated to hapū who will have 20 working days to provide comments. The independent planner will consider the comments in finalising the report.

8. Decision making and other opportunities

8.1 Delegation of functions, powers or duties

8.1.2 <Add translation> | Background

Section 34A of the RMA enables the Northland Regional Council to delegate any of its RMA functions, powers or duties (with some exceptions).

8.1.3 <Add translation> | The agreement

Northland Regional Council will:

· Upon request, meet with the hapū ~~may request to meet with the Northland Regional Council~~ to discuss the delegation of any of the Northland Regional Council’s RMA functions, powers or duties to the hapū (in accordance with section 34A of the RMA). The meeting will include the Northland Regional Council’s chief executive officer and chair.

· ~~The Northland Regional Council will~~ Provide a written response to the delegation request no later than 30 working days after the meeting.

The hapū will:

· Prior to the meeting with the Northland Regional Council, provide a report which outlines:

o The proposed function, power or duty to be delegated and any conditions of the delegation

o The costs and benefits of exercising the proposed delegation compared to the Northland Regional Council exercising the functions, powers or duty

o The capability and capacity of the hapū to exercise the delegation

8.2 Resource consent hearing panels

8.2.2 <Add translation> | Background

The Northland Regional Council regularly delegates decision making on notified resource consent applications to a hearing panel. In most instances, the hearing panel will include hearings commissioners, who are people with specialist expertise (e.g. water quality, planning and /or tikanga Māori).

8.2.3 <Add translation> | The agreement

The Northland Regional Council will:

· Maintain a list of preferred independent Māori commissioners^{^[6]}.

· Consider a nomination from the hapū to be added to the list of preferred independent Māori commissioners.

· Provide a written decision on whether the nominee will be added to the list of preferred independent Māori commissioners within 40 working days of receiving the nomination. If the decision is to decline the nomination, the written decision will outline the reasons why.

· Decide whether a Māori commissioner is appointed to the hearing panel for notified resource consent application. If a Māori commissioner is to be appointed, it will be from the list, unless there is good reason not to (e.g. due to unavailability or potential conflict of interest).

· If requested by the hapū, provide a written response within 20 working days of receiving the request outlining the reasons for its decision, for a notified resource consent application, to:

o Include a Māori commissioner on the hearing panel.

o Select a particular Māori commissioner.

The hapū will:

· If it wishes, nominate a Māori commissioner to be appointed to the list. The person nominated must, as a minimum, have a current Ministry for the Environment hearing commissioner’s accreditation.

· As part of the nomination, provide a written report outlining why the person is nominated and what skills and/or expertise they have.

8.3 Resource consent application processing

8.3.1 <Add translation> | Background

The Northland Regional Council has the responsibility to process and make decisions on resource consent applications. Hapū can be involved in various ways including engagement with applicants prior to applications being lodged, receiving copies of resource consent applications within their rohe, or being an ‘affected party’ and making submissions on notified consents.

8.3.2 <Add translation> | The agreement

Circulation of resource consent applications

The Northland Regional Council will:

· Encourage resource consent applicants to talk with hapū if the application is within the rohe of the hapū.

· Provide a copy of all resource consent applications within the rohe of the hapū after the application has been formally received.

· Provide hapū 12 working days to respond to the Northland Regional Council from the date the Northland Regional Council sent the copy of the resource consent application.

· If the hapū responds, the Northland Regional Council will talk with the hapū representative (phone or meeting, followed by email) to get a better understanding of the hapū concerns or to let the hapū know what the Northland Regional Council’s response is to the concerns raised (with an explanation). This is to occur prior to a formal request for further information from the resource consent applicant, or before the decision on the resource consent application if no formal request for further information is made.

The hapū will include in any response to the Northland Regional Council circulation of a resource consent application:

· A brief description of the cultural values of concern and the effects of the proposal on them.

· A hapū representative and their contact details with whom the Northland Regional Council can discuss the resource consent application with.

Fund for assisting hapū with their participation in significant resource consent applications

The Northland Regional Council will:

· Maintain a fund of $20,000 per year^{^[7]} to assist hapū with funding their participation in significant resource consent applications (e.g. notified applications)^{^[8]}.

· Set the criteria for the fund, including that it can only be used for providing evidence of cultural impacts and it cannot be used to support an appeal against a council resource consent decision.

· Make the decision on whether to fund a hapū application.

The hapū will:

· When applying to the fund, demonstrate how the application meets the criteria.

8.4 Training

8.4.2 <Add translation> | Background

An important way to increase the capability of hapū to participate in resource management is to provide training. The number of Māori RMA technicians that have had any formal training is limited, and they are often expected to provide expert advice on a variety of complex planning and technical issues across a range of specialist areas.

The aim of the hearing commissioner’s accreditation course is to provide participants with the skills and knowledge to guide them through the ethical, legal and practical requirements of decision making under RMA. Participants may not necessarily aspire to be hearing commissioners – the course provides a good overview of the RMA and how decisions are made.

8.4.3 <Add translation> | The agreement

Resource Management Act training

The Northland Regional Council will:

· Host a minimum of two and a maximum of four hui or wananga a year to provide training to hapū about the RMA and RMA processes.

· Provide up to $500 to support hosting each hui or wananga and make available staff to give presentations.

· Ask the hapū their views on venue, dates and the details of the hui or wananga.

· ~~At the request of the~~ ~~hapū, provide staff resources to give presentations and/or hold wananga with the hapū on the RMA and RMA processes (limited to one hui or wananga every two years)~~

· ~~Provide up to $500 to support the hapū hosting the hui or wananga (limited to one hui or wananga every two years)~~

Hearing commissioner accreditation

The Northland Regional Council will:

· Maintain a contestable fund to cover the course costs^{^[9]} of three (3) Tangata Whenua per year to attend a Ministry for the Environment’s “Making Good Decisions” course (the courses to achieve certification to be a commissioner under the RMA)^{^[10]}.

· Set criteria for the fund which will include eligibility and accountability criteria (e.g. must attend the full course and demonstrate capability to pass the course).

· Refuse to fund any nominee if they do not adequately meet the criteria as determined by the Northland Regional Council ~~it is considered that there would not be an overall benefit of the nominee attending the course or they are judged not to have the capability to pass the course~~.

· Upon request, discuss how the Northland Regional Council may be able to provide successful candidates assistance or support in their preparation for the course.

The hapū will:

· Include the reasons why the person wants to do the course and demonstrate that they have the capability to pass the course in a nomination to receive funding from the contestable fund.

~~Training for monitoring~~

~~Xxxx~~

9. Conflicts of interest

Te Mana Whakahono ā Rohe must include a process for identifying and managing conflicts of interest (S58R, RMA).

A conflict of interest is where a person’s position could be used to unfairly gain benefit for another interest.

Any council staff making a decision relating to the implementation of Te Mana Whakahono ā Rohe will abide by council policies for managing conflicts of interest.

Any councillor making a decision relating to the implementation of Te Mana Whakahono ā Rohe will abide by the council’s Code of Conduct.

The risk of conflicts of interest arising for the hapū implementing Te Mana Whakahono ā Rohe is considered very low. The Northland Regional Council is the decision maker for actions where there may otherwise be such a risk (such as allocation of funding). However, if the Northland Regional Council is of the view that there is an undue risk of a person representing the hapū or a person receiving any benefit arising from the implementation of Te Mana Whakahono ā Rohe having a conflict of interest, the Northland Regional Council may ask for evidence of endorsement from the hapū of the person. The Northland Regional Council may withhold from implementing the relevant action until the Northland Regional Council is satisfied with the evidence of the endorsement.

1. A conflict of interest does not arise for a person representing the hapū or receiving any benefit arising from the implementation of Te Mana Whakahono ā Rohe merely because they are a member of the hapū.

10. Dispute resolution

Should a dispute ~~or disagreement~~ arise about the implementation of Te Mana Whakahono ā Rohe, the hapū and the Northland Regional Council ~~relevant parties will~~ undertake to work together in good faith to resolve the dispute ~~or disagreement~~. ~~in the first instance~~. ~~If the dispute or disagreement cannot be resolved, the Northland Regional Council will be the final arbiter.~~

If the dispute cannot be resolved, the following steps will be taken:

(a) Any dispute may be referred to mediation in which an independent mediator will facilitates a negotiation between the hapū and the Northland Regional Council between the Parties. Mediation may be initiated by either party by notice in writing to the other party and must identify the dispute which is proposed for mediation.

(b) Upon receiving notice of the mediation, the other party will set out their position in relation to the dispute or disagreement in writing no later than 20 working days after receiving the notice.

(c) A suitable representative from the hapū and the Northland Regional Council with authority to resolve the dispute must attend the mediation.

(d) The mediation is to occur between 40 and 60 working days after the notice of mediation is received.

(e) The parties will agree on a suitable person to act as a mediator, or alternatively will request the Arbitrators and Mediators Institute of New Zealand Inc to appoint a mediator.

(f) If the dispute is not resolved by mediation, then it shall remain unresolved, and neither party is obliged to carry out any action relating to the dispute.

(g) Each party to pay for their own costs for the mediation, except the Northland Regional Council will pay for the mediator.

11. Review

Regular reviews of Te Mana Whakahono ā Rohe will ensure it works effectively and remains fit for purpose. The RMA requires a review every six years from the signing of Te Mana Whakahono ā Rohe as a default (section 58T).

11.1.2 Agreed review process

(a) The first review will start no later than ~~in the~~ ~~six~~ three months following the five ~~four~~-year anniversary of the first hapū signing Te Mana Whakahono ā Rohe (hereon referred to as the review start date).

(b) The Northland Regional Council will undertake a ~~the~~ review which will include (but is not limited to)

· An analysis of the extent the obligations and commitments of have been met.

· An assessment of whether the obligations and commitments are still effective and remain fit for purpose.

· A recommendation on what changes (if any) should be made to Te Mana Whakahono ā Rohe. This may include the termination of Te Mana Whakahono ā Rohe either in its entirety or with individual hapū.

(c) The Northland Regional Council will ~~undertake its own review of Te~~ ~~Mana Whakahono~~ ā ~~Rohe~~ ~~and~~ provide a written copy of its review ~~analysis~~ to the hapū. This must be provided to the hapū no later than 60 40 working days after the review start date.

(d) The hapū will undertake their own review and provide a written copy of it no later than 100 80 working days after the review start date.

(e) The Northland Regional Council will organise a hui at a geographically central marae to discuss the reviews ~~the assessments of all the parties~~:

i) The hui will be held between no later than 140 ~~90 and 120~~ working days after of the review start date. The hui will be facilitated by an independent facilitator^{^[11]}.

ii) The hui will be with all the hapū.

iii) The Northland Regional Council will appoint the facilitator and will aim to appoint someone with experience in tikanga, Māori perspectives and the RMA.

iv) The Northland Regional Council will cover the costs of hosting the hui (but not the costs of the hapū attendance) and the independent facilitator.

v) The chief executive officer and the chair of the Northland Regional Council will attend the hui.

vi) The equivalent of the chief executive officer and/or chair of each hapū will attend the hui.

vii) A key objective of the hui will be to get a clear understanding of the respective views of the parties, including matters of agreement and disagreement. ~~seek agreement on the changes (if any) that should be made to Te~~ ~~Mana Whakahono~~ ā ~~Rohe~~.

viii) At the end of the hui, the outcomes ~~matters of agreement and any disagreement~~ will be recorded and each party will confirm that it is an accurate record.

~~(f)~~ The record of the outcomes ~~matters of agreement and any disagreement~~ will be reported to the Northland Regional Council at a full council meeting and the governance body for the hapū. Direction from council will also be sought on the next steps, with the objective of reaching agreement between the Northland Regional Council and the hapū - but recognising that this may not be possible. ~~The Northland Regional Council will decide what changes (if any) should be made to the Mana Whakahono a Rohe.~~

12. Amendments

Te Mana Whakahono ā Rohe may be amended at any time with the agreement (in writing) of the hapū and the Northland Regional Council.

13. Termination

Te Mana Whakahono ā Rohe shall conclude six years from the date of signing, unless otherwise agreed by the hapū and the Northland Regional Council.

Schedule 1 – Statement of <Add hapū name>

This section is where each hapū can make their own statements. This could include:

· their view of the relationship with council,

· the reasons for entering the agreement,

· any caveats to entering the agreement, or

· references to existing agreements with council (e.g. an MOU) and an explanation of the existing agreement relates to the manawhakahono a rohe.

· map of rohe hapū

Schedule 2 – Statement of <Add hapū name>

This section is where each hapū can make their own statements. This could include:

· their view of the relationship with council,

· the reasons for entering the agreement,

· any caveats to entering the agreement, or

· references to existing agreements with council (e.g. an MOU) and an explanation of the existing agreement relates to the manawhakahono a rohe.

· map of rohe hapū

Te Taitokerau Māori and Council Working Party item: 3.10

12 September 2019

TITLE:	Update: Inter-regional marine pest management discussion document
ID:	A1230023
From:	Justin Murfitt, Strategic Policy Specialist

Executive summary/Whakarāpopototanga

The Inter-Regional Marine Pest Pathway Discussion Document on the management of marine pests across the four regions at the top of the North Island was released for public feedback on 18 March 2019. This consultation project was developed by the Top of the North Biosecurity Group - a collaborative project between Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Waikato Regional Council, Auckland Council, Northland Regional Council, Biosecurity NZ and the Department of Conservation (DOC). The Māori Technical Advisory Group also provided input into the development of the discussion document.

The discussion document sought feedback on a number of options to manage marine pests, including the option to develop consistent rules across the four regions. A total of 370 submissions were received. The feedback has been collated and is presented in the attached report (Attachment 1). All four councils and partner agencies have since agreed to identify a preferred option for managing marine pests across the four council jurisdictions and report back in early 2020.

Recommended actions

1. That the report “Update: Inter-regional marine pest management discussion document” by Justin Murfitt, Strategic Policy Specialist be received.

2. That the Te Taitokerau Māori and Council Working Party endorse engagement between staff and the Maori Technical Advisory Group on the identification of a preferred option for marine pest management.

Background/Tuhinga

The threat of marine pest incursions is particularly high in the coastal waters of northern New Zealand. Northland’s coastal waters are particularly susceptible to incursions of marine pests given the range of habitats available, relatively benign climate and the high number of visiting and resident vessels that are a vector for spread (the movement of ‘fouled’ vessels is the biggest pathway for the spread of marine pests). Northland also has significant cultural, natural heritage and economic values that are potentially impacted by marine pests. These issues are also faced by neighbouring regions such as Auckland, Waikato and Bay of Plenty, which in combination with Northland accommodate the majority of New Zealand’s vessel movements. Controlling marine pests once established is extremely difficult and preventing their arrival is far more cost-effective. Restricting the spread of marine pests is likely to be more effective if a coordinated and consistent multi-region approach is adopted – there are also potential efficiency gains in implementation.

The consultation

The discussion document presented four options for the overall direction on managing marine pests, being:

• Status quo – continue current efforts and work towards a national approach (with each region retaining the option to develop their own rules for managing marine pests);

• Lead the way with consistent rules requiring clean vessel hulls across the four biggest boating regions – Northland, Auckland, Waikato, and Bay of Plenty;

• Go further - make rules for other pathways too like ballast water, aquaculture, bilge water and marine equipment; or

• None of the above.

People were also asked for feedback on options for hull-fouling rules, this being the key pathway for the spread of marine pests. Engagement processes across the four regions and through MPI/Biosecurity NZ and DOC channels included:

• Email distribution to each agencies tangata whenua / stakeholder lists;

• Media releases;

• Public events / hui;

• Printed material (discussion document and pamphlets) provided to stakeholders; and

• Social media.

For a more detailed summary of the engagement see Appendix B in Attachment 1.

The results

The consultation attracted 370 submissions from a wide range of interests across New Zealand. Table 1 below shows submitters by location and whether they owned a boat stored ‘on-water’.

Table 1

Survey completed	Number of submitters	Boat ownership
Northland	120	89 (74%)
Auckland	123	70 (57%)
Waikato	22	12 (55%)
Bay of Plenty	49	23 (47%)
Elsewhere in NZ	22	10 (45%)
Overseas	1	1 (100%)
No region given	4	-
Incomplete submissions
No region given	29	-
Total responses considered	370	-

Key themes identified largely through comments in submissions were:

• The importance of protecting marine environments;

• Practicality and compliance issues;

• Managing other pathways is also important (not just hull fouling);

• The practicality of current tools (e.g. effectiveness of anti-foul, lack of haul-out facilities, and in water cleaning rules);

• The allocation / distribution of costs;

• Need for a national approach to managing marine pests;

• Pests having already established; and

• ‘Stationary vessels’ (i.e. low risk of spread).

The number of submitters that owned boats stored on-water was between 45% and 57% for all regions, except Northland where boat-owners made up 74% of respondents. This likely reflects that the issue has been recently debated through the Northland Marine Pest Pathway Plan and associated charging regime.

Feedback on the three primary options is summarised below in Figure 1:

Figure 1

Note: The total number of submitters who responded to this question is 314 (a number of submitters did not complete the question or were either from elsewhere in NZ, from overseas, or did not identify a region).

Responses from Northland differed from other regions in that a higher proportion (37%) preferred the ‘none of the above’ option compared with 8-9% in the other regions. Lower numbers of submissions from Bay of Plenty and Waikato may reflect the fact that marine pests are a less prominent issue and that there has been more debate on the matter recently in the Auckland and Northland regions – it may also reflect a lower percentage of owners of vessels stored ‘in-water’ in the Bay of Plenty and Waikato regions. Overall, the majority of responses sought more action on marine pest management by selecting either Option 2 or 3. This was slightly lower in Northland where Options 2 and 3 were supported by 50% of submitters who answered this question.

There were also regional variations in the response to the options for hull-fouling rules as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2

Overall, the results indicate there is support from those who responded for further efforts to manage marine pests across the four regions, with a significant percentage supporting some form of control on hull-fouling (although this is notably more muted in Northland than the other regions with 33% opposed to hull-fouling rules).

Next steps

The consultation has provided useful feedback on the issue of marine pest management. Council has since approved staff (in collaboration with the Top of the North Biosecurity Group partners) to undertake a detailed options analysis to identify a ‘preferred’ approach and report back in early 2020. This would include:

• A preferred option for marine pest management;

• An indicative cost / benefit assessment and rationale;

• An indicative implementation programme and associated costs; and

• An outline of the process should the preferred option be pursued.

Staff recommend that the Maori Technical Advisory Group be engaged to assist and provide input into the options analysis process outlined above.

After considering the options and supporting information council(s) could then decide whether:

• Further consultation be undertaken;

• More information on implementation approaches and / or costs be provided;

• Further investigation into the merits of other options be undertaken;

• A formal proposal under the Biosecurity Act should proceed; or

• No further action be taken.

In the event council (and partner agencies) support proceeding with a formal proposal under the Biosecurity Act, a draft proposal, full cost / benefit analysis and other supporting information required under the Act would be developed - this would require further approval from participating councils prior starting the formal process. It should be noted that each council / participating agency has discretion over whether to proceed and over how implementation costs are allocated (the allocation of implementation costs may therefore vary across each region).

There is clearly some appetite for more action to address marine pests across the ‘top of the north’ regions from both the individuals and the agencies that responded. There are also likely to be benefits arising from a consistent approach across the top of the north regions which staff recommend be explored further (including lower risk of pest incursions and clarity / simplicity for vessel owners).

Attachments/Ngā tapirihanga

Attachment 1: 2019-07-02_FINAL IRMPP consultation report (A1207542) ⇩

Authorised by Group Manager

Name:	Ben Lee
Title:	Acting Group Manager - Strategy, Governance and Engagement
Date:	3 September 2019

Te Taitokerau Māori and Council Working Party ITEM: 3.10

12 September 2019Attachment 1

cid:image007.png@01D52DA9.D33CFC90

· Table of Contents

1 Executive summary. 4

2 Introduction. 6

2.1 The Top of the North Marine Biosecurity Partnership. 6

2.2 Public Consultation and Engagement process. 6

3 Methodology. 7

3.1 Survey collection. 7

3.2 Analysis. 8

4 Results. 8

4.1 Number of responses. 8

4.2 Submitter types. 8

4.3 Key themes identified in submitter comments. 9

5 Question 1: Which is your preferred option for managing marine pests, and why?. 10

5.1 Overall feedback. 10

5.2 Feedback according to region. 11

5.3 Feedback according to boat ownership. 11

5.4 Summary of comments explaining preferred Option. 14

6 Question 2: If hull-fouling rules were developed, which option do you think is best, and why?. 20

6.1 Overall feedback. 20

6.2 Feedback according to region. 21

6.3 Feedback according to boat ownership. 22

6.4 Summary of comments explaining preferred Option. 24

7 Conclusion. 28

8 Appendix A – List of submitters. 30

9 Appendix B – Engagement summary. 39

· List of figures

Figure 1. Submitter responses to the question: What is your preferred option for managing marine pests, and why? The total number of submitters was 341. 11

Figure 2. Preferred options for managing marine pests by region. 12

Figure 3. Preferred option for managing marine pests, according to boat ownership. 13

Figure 4. Regional feedback according to boat ownership in response to the question: What is your preferred option for managing marine pests, and why?. 14

Figure 5. Submitter responses to the question: If hull-fouling rules were developed, which option do you think is best and why? The total number of submitters was 341. 20

Figure 6. Preferred option for hull-fouling rules by region. 21

Figure 7. Survey feedback according to boat ownership in response to the question: If hull-fouling rules were developed, which option do you think is best and why?. 22

Figure 8. Regional feedback according to boat ownership in response to the question: If hull-fouling rules were developed, which option do you think is best and why?. 23

· List of tables

Table 1. Number of submitters from each key region and the percentage of those from each region who owned a boat. 8

Table 2. Total number of submitter comments in relation to the question: Which is your preferred option for managing marine pests, and why? from each of the four northernmost Top of the North (TON) regions according to the key themes identified. 14

Table 3. Full names and organisations* of submitters grouped according to their main region of residence. *Not all listed organisations are officially represented by the listed individual and must therefore be taken as private submissions. 29

Table 4. Summary of publicity and engagement activities each region, Biosecurity New Zealand, and DOC conducted to publicise and attract submissions. 38

1 Executive summary

Background

This report summarises the views of 370 submitters on the discussion document ‘Better ways to stop marine pests?’. The report has been prepared by the Top of the North (TON) Marine Biosecurity Partnership and is intended to provide an overview of the preferences of submitters in relation to questions posed.

The report summarises the overall preferences of submitters and examines the differences between regions (Northland, Auckland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, and elsewhere in New Zealand or overseas) and according to boat ownership. It also outlines key themes identified in submitter comments and highlights points made by majority groups and notable submitters. It is not intended to be a comprehensive presentation of all points made by submitters.

Feedback was collected via an online survey hosted on Bionet.nz as well as in hardcopies made available from a range of places including regional council offices, iwi workshops, marinas, and boat clubs (See Appendix Table 4 for a full summary of the publicity and engagement activities each region, Biosecurity New Zealand, and DOC conducted to publicise and attract submissions). Email submissions were also accepted.

Summary of feedback

1. Which is your preferred option for managing marine pests, and why?

The preferred option was Option 3 (go even further and make rules for other pathways too; 37%), followed by Option 2 (lead the way with consistent rules for clean hulls; 30%), ‘none of the above’ (20%), and finally Option 1 (the status quo; 13%).

The majority of submitters (60%) were boat owners and, overall, their most commonly selected preference was Option 2 (31%) whereas the vast majority of submitters who do not own a boat that lives in the water selected Option 3 (60%).

2. If hull-fouling rules were developed, which option do you think is best, and why?

The preferred option for hull-fouling rules was Option 1 (clean hull at all times; 42%), followed by Option 2 (clean hull required only when moving; 24%), ‘none of the above’; 19%), and finally Option 3 (clean hull required only when moving to specially identified places; 15%).

Overall, boat owners were not polarised on this issue, with relatively equal numbers of submitters choosing each of the four options. Specifically, boat owners preferred ‘none of the above’ (29%), Option 1 (27%), Option 2 (24%), and Option 3 (20%), whereas the vast majority of submitters (65%) who do not own a boat selected Option 1.

Themes

There were nine key themes that were identified during the analysis of submitters comments, based on the questions posed in the discussion document. These were: 1) The importance of protecting marine environments; 2) Practicality and compliance issues; 3) Regional differences require local management; 4) Managing other pathways is also important (not just vessel hull biofouling); 5) The practicality of current tools (e.g., the effectiveness of anti-fouling, a lack of haul-out facilities, and in-water cleaning rules); 6) The allocation and distribution of costs (e.g., international/commercial vessels and ballast water issues); 7) The need for a national pathways plan; 8) Pests having already established; and 9) Exemptions are needed for stationary vessels.

Key messages

Overall, there was a clear call for greater action to address marine pests across the TON regions from both the individuals and the agencies that responded, some of which represent considerable numbers of marine users. In addition, there is likely to be benefit in implementing a consistent approach across the regions because issues around practicality and the ease or difficulty of compliance were of high importance to many submitters.

Results also indicate there is a significant percentage of submitters who support some form of control on hull-fouling, although this is notably more muted in Northland than the other regions with 33% either opposed to hull-fouling rules or seeking further detail about their implementation.

The differences in submitter responses and comments seen in Northland compared with the other TON regions likely reflect both a higher level of boat ownership and the recent introduction of the Northland Marine Pest Pathway Plan with an associated charging regime. While it seems clear that further engagement with boat owners is required, it is encouraging that many already support the introduction of new hull-fouling rules and desire consistency in these rules across the regions.

2 Introduction

2.1 The Top of the North Marine Biosecurity Partnership

For several years, Auckland Council, Gisborne District Council, Northland, Bay of Plenty Toi Moana, Waikato, and Hawkes Bay Regional Councils alongside Biosecurity New Zealand (part of the Ministry for Primary Industries) have worked together to prevent the spread of marine pests in New Zealand’s northernmost regions. Together these organisations have formed the Top of the North (TON) Marine Biosecurity Partnership.

The four northernmost regions are home to the largest boating populations in the country and there is extensive vessel movement (recreational and commercial) throughout. However, the rules and management approaches for marine pests currently vary between the TON councils:

· Northland Regional Council has had marine pest-led rules in place since 2010 and recently introduced pathway rules requiring a clean hull when entering the region or moving from place to place. The pest-led rules are implemented through a surveillance programme which inspects more than 2000 hulls each year. The pathways plan rules are yet to be fully implemented, however the pathways approach is a proactive way to manage the impacts of marine pests rather than a reactive measure of managing pests once they are already established.

· Auckland Council has risk-based rules in the Unitary Plan to manage the spread of harmful and invasive organisms, which include marine pests, via fouled hulls.

· Waikato Regional Council currently has no marine pests or pathway plan rules in place but is active in managing the impacts and risks of marine pest species.

· Bay of Plenty Regional Council has pathway-style rules in the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan, and currently has small-scale management programmes for Sabella and Styela.

2.2 Public Consultation and Engagement process

A key area of focus for the TON Partnership is the management of risk pathways that have the potential to introduce or spread marine pest populations in the TON regions, and throughout New Zealand. Feedback on the discussion document ‘Better ways to stop marine pests?’ was gathered to help the TON Partnership understand people’s views on how to prevent the spread of marine pests. To explore whether inter-regional hull-fouling rules could be a better way forward, a public consultation was run to assess answers to the following questions:

1) Which is your preferred option for managing marine pests, and why?

· Option 1 – Status quo

Continue our combined efforts and work towards a collaborative national pathway approach. In the meantime, each region keeps its own rules or policies for managing marine pests.

· Option 2 – Lead the way with consistent rules for clean hulls

Develop consistent rules on managing hull-fouling across the four biggest boating regions – Northland, Auckland, Waikato and Bay of Plenty.

· Option 3 – Make rules for other pathways too

Along with rules for hull-fouling, develop rules for other pathways like ballast water, aquaculture, bilge water, and marine equipment.

· None of the above

2) If hull-fouling rules were developed, which option do you think is best, and why?

· Option 1 – Clean hull required at all times

All vessel hulls required to have no more than a slime layer and/or barnacles at all times.

· Option 2 – Clean hull required only when moving

No more than a slime layer and/or barnacles permitted when moving from one harbour/place to another. This rule is already in place for Northland.

· Option 3 – Clean hull required only when moving to specially identified places

No more than a slime layer and/or barnacles permitted when moving to specially identified high value places.

· None of the above

See Appendix (Table 4) for a summary of the publicity and engagement activities each region, MPI, and DOC conducted to publicise and attract submissions.

The feedback received on the ‘Better ways to stop marine pests?’ has been collated and is presented in this report. This information will be used to help the relevant agencies decide whether to formally proceed with developing shared rules within the Northland, Auckland, Waikato, and Bay of Plenty regions. If new rules were proposed, these would need to follow the public consultation and decision-making processes set out in the Biosecurity Act 1993. This would include consideration of implementation, including roles and responsibilities, where costs should lie, and how these should be funded.

3 Methodology

3.1 Survey collection

Feedback was collected via an online survey hosted on Bionet.nz as well as in hardcopies distributed to:

· Regional council offices

· Iwi workshops

· Marinas

· Harbour master offices

· Haul-out facilities

· Boat clubs

· Boat ramps

· Community groups

· Mooring holders

· Hutchwilco New Zealand Boat Show

Email submissions were also accepted. All email submissions which did not answer the questions posed in the survey, and all paper surveys that were incomplete, were recorded and comments were included in qualitative analyses. See Appendix Table 4 for a full summary of the publicity and engagement activities each region, Biosecurity New Zealand, and DOC conducted to publicise and attract submissions.

3.2 Analysis

Quantitative data are presented as counts and percentages, in total and per region, as well as according to boat ownership. Qualitative data from submitters’ comments were categorised and quantified according to common themes identified and a general discussion of key points from submitter’s comments is included.

4 Results

4.1 Number of responses

Overall, 370 responses were received; 341 submitters completed the survey and responded to the main questions, and an additional 29 submitters responded but did not provide an answer to one or both of the main survey questions. These additional submitters responded via email or by sending incomplete paper surveys and their comments are included in the report (Table 1).

Table 1. Number of submitters from each key region and the percentage of those from each region who owned a boat.

Survey completed	Number of submitters	Boat ownership
Northland	120	89 (74%)
Auckland	123	70 (57%)
Waikato	22	12 (55%)
Bay of Plenty	49	23 (47%)
Elsewhere in NZ	22	10 (45%)
Overseas	1	1 (100%)
No region given	4	-
Incomplete submissions
No region given	29	-
Total responses considered	370	-

4.2 Submitter types

Submitters mainly included individuals from across New Zealand but also a range of notable organisations including maritime/boating interest groups (Aquaculture New Zealand, the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF), Far North Holdings Limited, Coromandel Marine Farmers Association (CoroMFA), New Zealand Marina Operators Association, New Zealand Federation of Commercial Fisherman, Sanford Limited, New Zealand Marine Industry Association, Russell Mooring Owners and Ratepayers, Bay of Islands Maritime Park Incorporated Society), Iwi (Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua), Regional and District Councils (Greater Wellington Regional Council, Thames-Coromandel District Council, Waikato Regional Council Coromandel Catchment Committee), conservation groups/societies (New Zealand Marine Sciences Society, Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc.).

4.3 Key themes identified in submitter comments

There were nine key themes identified during the analysis of submitter comments, based on the questions posed in the discussion document:

1. The importance of protecting marine environments

2. Practicality and compliance issues

3. Regional differences require local management

4. Managing other pathways is also important (not just vessel hull biofouling)

5. The practicality of current tools, including:

· The effectiveness of anti-fouling

· A lack of haul-out facilities

· In-water cleaning rules

6. The allocation and distribution of costs, including:

· International/commercial vessels

· Ballast water

7. The need for a national pathway plan

8. Pests having already established

9. Exemptions for stationary vessels (relevant to Question 2 only)

5

Question 1: Which is your preferred option for managing marine pests, and why?

· Or None of the above

5.1 Overall feedback

Of the 341 submitters who completed the survey and responded to this question: 44 (13%) agreed with Option 1; 102 (30%) agreed with Option 2; 126 (37%) agreed with Option 3; and 69 (20 %) agreed with ‘none of the above’ (Figure 1). Eight of the additional 29 submitters who did not provide direct answers to the survey questions preferred Option 2, three preferred Options 1 and 3, respectively, and one preferred ‘none of the above’. Preferences of the remaining additional submitters were not clear from their comments.

Which is your preferred option for managing marine pests?

Figure 1. Submitter responses to the question: What is your preferred option for managing marine pests, and why? The total number of submitters was 341.

5.2 Feedback according to region

There were regional differences, with the preferences of Northland submitters being notably different to the other TON regions. In particular, only 16% of Northland submitters chose Option 2 compared with 39%, 46%, and 47% of submitters from Auckland, Waikato, and Bay of Plenty, respectively. In contrast, 37% of Northland submitters chose ‘none of the above’ compared with only 8-9% of those from the other TON regions (Figure 2). In addition, 64% of submitters from elsewhere in New Zealand selected Option 3 (22 submitters). The total number of submitters who responded to this question was 314 (a number of submitters either did not complete the question or were from elsewhere in NZ, overseas, or did not identify a region).

Which is your preferred option for managing marine pests?

Figure 2. Preferred options for managing marine pests by region.

5.3 Feedback according to boat ownership

In total, 331 of the 341 submitters responded to the question of whether or not they owned/co-owned a boat that lives in the water. The majority (205, 60%) were boat owners, and most kept their boats in Northland (82 submitters) and Auckland (57 submitters). Overall, the most commonly selected preference by boat owners was Option 2 (64, 31%), followed by ‘none of the above’ (61, 30%) and Option 3 (46, 22%), whereas the vast majority of submitters who do not own a boat that lives in the water preferred Option 3 (76, 60%) (Figure 3). There were also regional differences in the preferences of boat owners, as shown in Figure 4. Most notably, boat owners in Northland were more likely to prefer ‘none of the above’ whereas the majority of those from the other TON regions preferred Option 2. All submitters who do not own a boat showed similar preferences across the regions.

Which is your preferred option for managing marine pests?

Figure 3. Preferred option for managing marine pests, according to boat ownership.

Which is your preferred option for managing marine pests?

5.4 Summary of comments explaining preferred Option

Overall, 258 submitters (76%) provided a comment with their answer to Q1 (96 from Northland, 82 from Auckland, 14 from Waikato, 41 from Bay of Plenty, 21 from elsewhere in New Zealand and 1 from overseas (Table 2). In addition, there were relevant comments from the majority of the 29 submitters who did not complete the survey. Similar themes were addressed in comments across all options; however, the same theme could be presented either in general support of, or in general opposition to, the new rules initiative depending on the option selected. For example, several submitters who selected Option 3 and ‘none of the above’ cited concern regarding international vessels and ballast water. The former submitters were more likely to suggest the need for as robust rules as possible across all pathways, while the latter were more likely to suggest no rules were worthwhile at all, least of all regional hull-fouling rules, because they felt marine biosecurity was impossible to control.

	Submitter comments relating to key themes
Theme	Northland	Auckland	Waikato	Bay of Plenty	Elsewhere in NZ	Overseas
Practicality and compliance	20	31	4	24	4	0
Marine protection important	4	11	2	3	3	0
Regional differences	4	4	0	2	1	0
All pathways are important	8	6	1	1	5	0
Distribution of costs
International/commercial vessels	24	4	1	3	2	0
Ballast water	9	7	0	3	1	1
No practical tools
Anti-fouling ineffective	9	1	1	1	0	0
Haul-out facilities	5	1	0	0	0	0
In-water cleaning	2	0	0	0	0	0
Pests already established	7	5	1	2	0	0
National plan required	16	7	1	1	5	0
Total number of submitters	120	123	22	49	22	1
Total number of comments made	96	82	14	41	21	1

Option 1: Status quo – regions set their own rules or policies

Of the 44 submitters who preferred Option 1, 28 made a comment. The Thames-Coromandel District Council (TCDC) cited the need for a National Pathways Plan, and the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) commented that decisions about pathway rules should be made at a national level:

“NZDF supports Option 1, which proposes to continue combined efforts and work towards a collaborative national pathway approach, yet in the meantime allow each region to keep its own rules or policies for managing marine pests. Although NZDF agrees that consistent pathway rules across the country would create certainty for vessel operators, such decisions should be made at a national level following detailed consideration of the practicalities of their implementation for larger vessels with unique operating profiles. The approach would also need to consider the possible effects on the RNZN fleet, so that the operational capability of the NZDF is not restricted.”

“TCDC submits that marine biosecurity is of such critical significance to New Zealand that as a matter of urgency, central government, working collaboratively with regional councils and other key stakeholders, should lead the development of a national pathway approach for coastal waters.”

The majority of the comments relating to Option 1 highlighted regional differences in pest species (9 comments), the importance of international and/or commercial vessels as a vector of invasive species (5 comments), and that pests are already established, particularly on marinas and permanent structures (5 comments). For example, a private submitter from the Bay of Plenty suggested “the one rule fits all denies local situations”, and two other submitters thought that “the spread of pests across all regions is inevitable” and “the resident boating public are the injured parties through lack of border controls.”

Option 2: Develop consistent hull-fouling rules across Northland, Auckland, Waikato and Bay of Plenty

Of the 102 submitters who chose Option 2, 68 made a comment. The majority who commented (52) suggested this was the best option because it would be the most practical and would achieve the greatest level of compliance. For example, an individual submitter from Northland suggested:

“Consistent rules make compliance and enforcement easier for all parties. The issues are the same throughout the regions.”

Key stakeholders that supported Option 2 included Aquaculture New Zealand, the New Zealand Marine Industry Association and the Coromandel Marine Farmers Association. Aquaculture New Zealand commented:

“Acknowledging the risks of spreading organisms between operational regions, the aquaculture industry is developing biosecurity standards for the salmon, mussel, and oyster industries that will set rules for the pathways that are within its control, particularly between Operational Regions (e.g. Top of the North; Top of the South, Banks Peninsula, Southland etc.). Given that aquaculture is setting its own biosecurity standards, it seems appropriate that other pathways in the marine environment have consistent rules and standards applied.”

Similarly, the Coromandel Marine Farmers Association commented:

“Given that marine Biosecurity is desirable and important, our CoroMFA supports; Firstly, that there be consistent hull-fouling rules as per Option 2, and which appears to be the key risk pathway. Secondly, that there be further consideration and consultation re the Option 3 matters of "rules for other pathways" in the marine environment.”

Peter Busfield, Executive Director of the NZ Marine Industry Association, was also supportive of Option 2 and commented:

“We like the concept of the 4 noted regions working together to have one set of rules for vessels in each of and moving to and from each region. We do wish to make sure that any rules are fair, practical, easily understood and easy to comply with by boat owners.”

In addition, Thomas Malcolm, of Auckland, cited the need for a National Pathways Plan, commenting:

“Having run a workshop for Auckland Council with Mana whenua from the area, there was a strong sense that something needed to be done. Option 2 was the bottom line for the majority of the people present, but some wanted option 3. I feel that some of the mana whenua will not have time to make a submission. That being said, I would like to see ToN develop the IRMPPP based on option 2 whilst holding MPI accountable for their lack of national direction.”

Option 3: Go further and develop rules for other pathways too (e.g., ballast water)

The largest proportion of submitters (126, 37%) selected Option 3 and 94 also made a comment. Overall, the most common themes identified in these comments were practicality and compliance (28 comments), followed by the importance of marine protection (21 comments), all pathways are important (20 comments), ballast water (9 comments) and international/commercial vessels (8 comments) as vectors of pest species, and that a national pathway approach is required (7 comments).

There was a high level of support for this option by the notable individuals and organisations who submitted. For example, the New Zealand Marine Sciences Society (NZMSS) supported Option 3, highlighting the importance of all pest pathways:

“We do not believe option 2 will be effective as it does not consider all pathways (e.g. aquaculture). In the management of marine pests it is important to consider all of the ways in which pests can enter and be spread within New Zealand. Pathway management should not just concentrate on vessel hulls. The transport of invasive species in ship ballast water and through movement of aquaculture infrastructure (vessels, buoys, harvesting and processing equipment) has been widely demonstrated. Furthermore, structures within harbours, ports and marinas, such as buoys, pontoons, moorings, platforms, walls and boat traffic, are known to harbour and spread a range of marine pests. These aspects therefore all need to be included in pathway management.”

Similarly, an individual submitter from Nelson suggested:

“The most prudent approach is to fill all gaps in pathway management as much as resources allow. This will take longer to implement than other options, and involve stakeholder consultation to optimize strategies and management tools without unnecessary impact on user groups. But significant gaps in vector management can (is likely to) undermine progress made on other pathways. The cost of implementation should diminish over time as a culture of pathway management is ingrained. This approach is the most comprehensive long-term management vision, which can be developed and implemented over time in a step-wise approach as resources allow.”

In addition, the Greater Wellington Regional Council “strongly supports development of the comprehensive national marine pathway management plan”, as does the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc.:

“We support the inclusion of pathways into an inter-regional pest management approach, either under a National Pest Pathway Plan or through a coordinated approach to developing and implementing Regional Pest Pathway Plans. We want a pathway plan(s) that is proactive, sets requirements for Councils to designate harbours and popular anchorages as discrete ‘places’ (as per the Northland RPMP) in order to control the introduction and spread of marine pests and to protect our significant indigenous marine biodiversity. We agree with the consultation documents that there is a risk that councils will delay action while considering this approach. We have already seen evidence of this in Auckland where their recently adopted regional pest plan refers to a possible inter-regional pathway plan as a reason for not including pathway management at this time in that plan. This means that the Ministry for Primary Industries needs to be very clear in pursuing an inter-regional approach that this should not delay current responsibilities of councils which can be addressed under a regional pest plan in the interim. MPI needs to move faster, too often we have seen delays and inaction which result in the spread of pests and disease. Whatever option is adopted we consider that Councils need to have responsibility for implementing and enforcing rules and that the pathway management plan be completed by the end of 2020.”

Tame teRangi, on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua, commented:

“The arrival of invasive marine-pests in any of the waterways is deemed culturally inappropriate. The significance of iconic places across the extent of the Ngāti Whātua tribal rohe also carries the upper-most obligation to ensure the environmental integrity of those areas including the marine environment. [This] submission states that the classification of managing invasive marine pests be assigned the highest of priorities with strict enforceable penalties for any such breaches of unwonted disregard. That such prohibition be applied to any public marine place including those waterways where wild-catch wild-harvest activities occur.”

Several individuals from places in New Zealand outside the TON regions also commented on the importance of a national plan. For example, a submitter from Nelson commented:

“Considering that the Marlborough Sounds has such a significant percentage of NZ coast it should be one of the areas on the survey. Being a 'lifetime boatie' I am only too willing to help but it needs help from all sides - not just from the 'easy victims'.”

With regards to practicality and compliance, five independent submitters all supported Option 3 with a replicated submission, stating their reasons as:

“1) Boats move readily between regions, especially from Auckland and Waikato to Northland. It is logical that there be consistent rules for hull fouling between regions; and 2) It is more cost-effective if the same message is promoted in the four regions as many boat-owners will not know about, or refer to, the different regional marine biosecurity plans.”

Comments that related to international and/or commercial vessels usually highlighted concern over the distribution of costs. For example, an individual submitter from Nelson suggested:

“We cannot ignore foreign shipping or NZ Based commercial fishing vessels The recreational boating community always gets the short end of the stick.”

None of the above

All but one of the 69 submitters who chose ‘none of the above’ also provided a comment as to why they preferred this option. The majority of comments related to the importance of international and/or commercial vessels (22 comments) as vectors of pest species, the need for a national pathways approach (20 comments), ballast water (10 comments), the ineffectiveness of anti-fouling paint (10 comments), and the feeling that pests were already established, particularly on permanent structures and marinas (9 comments).

Just under 20% (13 submitters) were comments according to a template document distributed by the Russell Mooring Owners & Ratepayers group. These submitters felt that:

“Councils impose considerable compliance costs on recreational boaties who by and large care for the marine environment, and yet boaties’ efforts are stymied by the lack of rules on the commercial sector. New Zealand should have consistent domestic rules across the country that apply to both commercial and recreational vessels for methods that mitigate the biosecurity risk aspects of their vessels and gear.”

Submitters who were concerned about ballast water generally felt the risks from this pathway, and others, overruled any posed by domestic boat travel. For example, an individual submitter from Northland commented:

“Without including ballast water in the regulations there is no sense in doing anything. And even including ballast water is simply delaying (at great cost) the inevitable. Perhaps allowing more toxic bottom paint is a more economical and effective way to slow the spread of undesirable organisms. Punishing yachts when the marine pests are moving by other means is not only unfair but pointless. If you are serious about controlling marine pests you must consider all pathways including natural within the ocean.”

Several submitters mentioned the ineffectiveness of current anti-fouling options, and suggested superior alternatives, or highlighted the lack of other practical tools such as cleaning grids. For example, an individual submitter from Northland asked:

“Where have all the cleaning grids gone? Don’t expect clean hulls if you deny boat owners affordable access to cleaning facilities.”

Those who mentioned anti-fouling paints almost unanimously cited their ineffectiveness, for example:

“The rules on hull fouling are frustrating, the effective paint additives have been removed, then boat owners are required to somehow have clean hulls (barnacles excluded).”

However, a number of submitters also suggested implementing alternative solutions, such as:

“Need[s] some lateral thinking. Antifouling paint is poisonous, expensive, short-term only. I was owner of the scow Alma (75ft) in 1980's, we moved her into "fresh water" in the Waima river, to kill teredo worm and all marine pests, worked well. Fresh water canals/basins, should be a part of all marina developments. (Think Marsden Cove (inland canal development), Hatea River).”

Many of these submitters expressed a desire to protect the environment and comply with council to control marine pests, however they believe any plans should be ratepayer funded. The incursion of the Sabella was central to many comments, particularly those that felt pests were already established. For example, an individual submitter from Northland suggested:

“What’s the point? They are here to stay, perfect example is Marsden Cove stopped trying to get rid of the fan worm, was too hard and expensive. It will be everywhere in a few years no matter what is done. Stop burdening the boat owners with a solution that won’t stop the outcome.”

6 Question 2: If hull-fouling rules were developed, which option do you think is best, and why?

· Or None of the above

6.1 Overall feedback

Overall, 341 submitters completed the survey and responded to this question: 144 (42%) agreed with Option 1; 80 (24%) agreed with Option 2; 51 (15%) agreed with Option 3; and 66 (19%) agreed with ‘none of the above’ (Figure 5). In addition, two of the 29 additional submitters (who did not answer the survey questions directly) provided clear feedback in accordance with a preference for Option 1, while the remaining comments from this cohort did not provide a clear answer.

If hull-fouling rules were developed, which option do you think is best?

Figure 5. Submitter responses to the question: If hull-fouling rules were developed, which option do you think is best and why? The total number of submitters was 341.

6.2 Feedback according to region

As was the case for Question 1 detailed above, the preferences of Northland submitters were notably different to the other regions. Specifically, while only 8-14% of submitters from Auckland, Waikato, and Bay of Plenty chose ‘none of the above’, the greatest proportion of Northland submitters (33%) selected this option. Instead, the vast majority of submitters from these former regions selected Options 1, 2, or 3 (Figure 6). The 22 submitters from elsewhere in NZ, and one from overseas, who answered this survey question selected Option 1 (9 submitters), Option 2 (8 submitters), Option 3 (1 submitter) and ‘none of the above’ (5 submitters).

If hull-fouling rules were developed, which option do you think is best?

Figure 6. Preferred option for hull-fouling rules by region.

6.3 Feedback according to boat ownership

Overall, the most commonly selected preference by boat owners was ‘none of the above’ (60, 29%), followed by Option 1 (56, 27%), Option 2 (49, 24%), and Option 3 (40, 20%), whereas the vast majority of submitters (82, 65%) who do not own a boat selected Option 1 (Figure 7).

If hull-fouling rules were developed, which option do you think is best?

Figure 7. Survey feedback according to boat ownership in response to the question: If hull-fouling rules were developed, which option do you think is best and why?

Notable regional differences included Northland boat owners showing a clear preference for ‘none of the above’ while boat owners from Waikato favoured Option 3. In contrast, boat owners from Auckland and the Bay of Plenty had less clear preferences between the options but overall the majority selected Option 1 (Figure 8).

If hull-fouling rules were developed, which option do you think is best?

Figure 8. Regional feedback according to boat ownership in response to the question: If hull-fouling rules were developed, which option do you think is best and why?

6.4 Summary of comments explaining preferred Option

In total, 232 (68%) submitters provided an answer to why they preferred their chosen option, and approximately half of the additional 29 submitters also provided relevant comments.

Option 1: A clean hull required at all times

The majority of submitters preferred Option 1 (144, 42%), with 92 providing comments. Two thirds of these comments related to practicality and compliance (60 comments). Other themes were the importance of marine protection (15 comments), and issues around practical tools, e.g., a lack of haul-out facilities (6 comments) and ineffective anti-fouling paints (5 comments).

Amongst the majority of submitters that cited practicality and compliance in support of the option of enforcing a clean hull at all times were NZMSS and the Greater Wellington Regional Council, the latter also commenting on the need for a national pathways approach:

“Northland require a clean hull, we suggest the other three regions match this – if it is a standard that is working in one area, it should be successful when applied to the whole region. It is also the least confusing rule, with no exceptions, and on that basis is likely to be the easiest option to carry out surveillance activities for, bearing in mind that funding must be available to police it. Again, the marine biosecurity will only truly benefit if a national marine pathway management plan is in place.”

In addition to supporting the development of a national plan, NZMSS suggested clarification on the definition of a ‘clean hull’ citing concern over the allowance of ‘barnacles’:

“Option 1 is clearly the best option in terms of clarity, compliance, enforcement and minimising the spread of invasive marine species. The other options will be less effective as they are considerably more difficult from a compliance and enforcement perspective. From a practical perspective Option 1 could be implemented by issuing boats that are fouled with a notice that means they cannot be used or moved until they have been cleaned. This will mean that boats are not being used do not incur a fine, but prevent movement of that boat until it is cleaned. This will be more effective than Option 2 as it means boats can be inspected within ports and marinas. Option 3, which only requires clean hulls in high value areas, is highly problematic and not a practical solution due to the highly dispersive nature of marine species and high connectivity in the marine environment. NZMSS believes it is important to clarify the rules regarding a standard for a ‘clean’ hull’. It appears that these have changed recently and we encourage the development of a standard that is fit for purpose. It should therefore include specific information on all of the types of organisms likely to foul boats. Slime is a very vague term and a more precise definition is needed. Furthermore, we are concerned that “barnacles” are generally incorporated in the allowable clean hull standard as (a) there are numerous species and (b) they provide a complex surface for other biofouling species to be associated with them, providing increased opportunity for marine pests to settle. NZMSS believes a comprehensive ‘clean’ hull standard needs to be developed that is easy to use and allows regulators to assess the level of biofouling on a vessel. The efficacy of implementing an inter-regional pathway management plan is currently unknown so monitoring will be essential to evaluating the uptake of the rules and assessing the effectiveness of the plan in preventing the introduction and spread of marine pests.”

The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc. expressed similar questions/concerns as NZMSS above:

“Clean hull requirements need to be in place at all times to ensure that boating does not contribute to an increase in marine pests where they already exist or the introduction of marine pests into areas where they are currently not established. However it is not clear at what level of slime cover or barnacle infestation cleaning is required. Even at low levels there can be an unacceptable risk of spreading pests to new areas/harbours and to our high value areas.”

Three submitters using a shared template also highlighted concerns over exemptions for boats not moving for long periods and the ineffectiveness of anti-fouling paints:

“There needs to be an easy way to apply for an exemption if a boat is not being moved for two months or longer (e.g. on-line form addressing dates, place of mooring (including mooring number or marina berth), owner details, boat name and type, New Zealand contact details if different, time period for exemption up to a maximum). There needs to be careful consideration as to what constitutes a “clean hull” especially for boats in the Opua-lower Waikare-Veronica Channel area. Pacific oysters and barnacles grow very quickly in this area and there are abundant sources of local oyster spat. Boats moored in this locality and hauled and antifouled in December 2018, had extensive and rapid barnacle regrowth and some oyster regrowth after less than six weeks. From then the hulls have required significant in-water cleaning approximately every four weeks. It seems that irrespective of the hull material and the antifouling paint used, the application of new anti-fouling paint has not made much difference to the hull fouling rates in this location.”

In contrast to the above comments, other submitters suggested that though option 1 was their preferred choice, they thought it may not be the most practical option, e.g., an individual submitter from Auckland commented that option 1 was:

“… obviously the best, however impractical.”

Several submitters who selected Option 1 also mentioned a desire to protect the marine environment. For example, a Northland resident commented:

“The weight of recreational values should not outweigh the importance of water quality and the marine environment.”

Option 2: A clean hull required only when moving from one harbour/place to another

Following Option 1, the next highest number of submitters chose Option 2 (80 submitters, 24%), with 53 of these providing comments. Themes were identified in much the same pattern as for Option 1, with the greatest proportion relating to practicality and compliance (25 comments), followed by a lack of practical tools (haul-out facilities [5 comments] and ineffective anti-fouling paint [2 comments]), and international and/or commercial vessels as a vector for pests (4 comments).

Several submitters noted this seemed much more affordable than Option 1 for boat owners, which would result in higher compliance. For example, the following three comments were provided by individual submitters from across different regions:

“This will be much more affordable for boaties which will hopefully result in higher uptake and compliance.”

“Easier to enforce (but this does need to be enforced to work, particularly at entry point with right of refusal for entry) and simpler to understand for boaties. Does not penalize so much boaties while they are not going anywhere and deals with inconsistency between requiring boaties to maintain a clean hull whilst moored in places (e.g., marinas) with existing extensive biofouling and NIS.”

“Pro-active vector management (option 2) promotes a clean hull culture; addresses the compounding effects of pest spread among marinas (and high-value sites); focuses on biofouling associated with moving vessels (the core problem); and provides flexibility to address biofouling (any time at home marinas or at the point of pre-departure [for boaters] and at arrival [for managers]). Adopting a pathway management plan that reduces 'export', as well as 'import', of pests provides the strongest basis for minimizing pest spread.”

Option 3: A clean hull required only when moving to specifically identified places (high value areas)

Of the 51 submitters who preferred Option 3, 27 comments were provided. These mostly related to practicality and compliance (7 comments), lack of haul-out facilities (3 comments), and the feeling that pests were already well established in the environment (3 comments).

Notable submitters who agreed with Option 3 and cited practicality issues included the NZDF and Tom Hollings, Executive Officer of the Coromandel Marine Farmers Association.

NZDF commented:

“This option is the most pragmatic and achievable. It ensures that rules are developed having regard to the different marine environments of the specific regions, and gives the RNZN comfort that ships can return to their home port at DNB without having to be cleaned off-shore (which is not a preferred option by MPI).”

The Coromandel Marine Farmers Association felt:

“Having clean hulls when moving between regions is valuable and it is planned to very soon be incorporated into Aquaculture industry biosecurity standards. That concept is likewise seen as valuable for all northern coastal vessels. We suggest the need is to identify and minimise the higher risk movements and that moving around nearby is not per se the issue but rather the issue is as per option 3, moving from where (define) to where (define).”

Those submitters concerned about practical tools for keeping hulls clean most commonly mentioned prohibitive costs and accessibility. For example, two individual submitters from Auckland and Waikato respectively commented:

“It is difficult to get a lift out even in Auckland at short notice as well as expensive to get a hull cleaned may be as often as monthly.”

“I agree with action needing to be taken, I also feel the affected areas and councils must take practical steps to ensure relatively easy access to haulout facilities to allow boat owners the opportunity to keep their boat hulls clean and regularly anti fouled.”

Finally, the feeling that pests are already established in the marine environment concerned several submitters who made points such as:

“Marine pests of the type this discussion is subject to are already established in many Marinas, infrastructure structures and vessel bottoms in Auckland and Northland. The cost of compliance if a blanket regulation was enacted will be excessive. New Zealand is very under supplied with marine service industries and locations that can cope with the implications of the suggested requirements for continual clean bottom. Particularly larger craft in excess of 100 tonne.”

None of the above

The majority of respondents who selected ‘none of the above’ also provided a comment (60 comments made by 66 submitters). More than a third of these cited a lack of practical tools (including the ineffectiveness of current anti-fouling paint options [23 comments] and lack of haul-out facilities [13 comments]), and another third (21 comments) questioned the fairness of targeting small boat owners, specifically mentioning international and/or commercial vessels and ballast water as important vectors of pest species. The incursion of the Sabella was also central to many of these comments, with 11 submitters stating that pests were already well established. Only 6 comments related to practicality and compliance, in contrast to the majority of comments made in support of each of the previous options.

Notable submitters who selected this option were not necessarily opposed to new rules, but tended to request clarification on the possible new rules or provide practical ideas on how they saw the rules being enforced. For example, Chris Galbraith, of the New Zealand Marina Operators Association, commented:

“We would like to discuss options but need to be clear on how structure/facility owners are affected by the rules that would be decided for vessels and how these would be policed and who would pay the costs of enforcement.”

Sanford Limited commented:

“Sanford supports the concept of a yearly clean hull pass that is issued to all boats both commercial and recreational prior to summer similar to a warrant of fitness. It is important that the certificate is easy to obtain and keep updated - for example the certificate can be stored on a smart phone and linked to the name of the boat. Not carrying a certificate could be subject to minor infringement notices, that escalate in penalty and consequence for repeated non-compliance. The aim of the programme should be to improve boat owner awareness and encourage responsibility. Sanford also supports the clean hull pass being part of a wider pest management awareness education programme and voluntary compliance.”

Aquaculture New Zealand highlighted the importance of all pathways:

“Given that aquaculture is setting its own biosecurity standards, it seems appropriate that other pathways in the marine environment have similar rules and standards applied. As such AQNZ would support the development of a rule that ensured clean hull requirements on movements between operational regions and look forward to further consideration and consultation on the development of such a rule. One option would be to develop a 'clean vessel pass' for all watercraft that are anchoring in areas of special significance (or moving between operational regions). The pass would be kept on the boat and renewed each year (e.g. between August-December). It could be free for recreational boats, and for commercial ones they would need to have it certified by a registered dive company. Not carrying it would result in an infringement notice with more serious penalties on repeated non-compliance.”

Finally, the TCDC commented on the need for a national pathways plan:

“TCDC does not have a view on which of these options is the best approach, Rather, it considers that central government, in collaboration with regional councils and other stakeholders should lead the development of a consistent national rule framework for coastal waters that includes rules, standards, management systems and timeframes for implementation across various pathways. This approach needs to be fully integrated with the frameworks for managing international vessels and aquaculture-related movement of marine pests if effective biosecurity is to be achieved.”

The submitters who highlighted practicality and compliance were all highly concerned that any new rules would be unpractical and unachievable. For example, a resident of Northland commented:

“How could you possibly achieve any of these options without astronomical costs? It seems to me the process is almost self limiting.”

In addition, approximately half of the comments (12) relating to the lack of practical tools and concern over international and/or commercial vessels were based off a template document distributed by the Russell Mooring Owners & Ratepayers group. The individuals from this group stated:

“My preferred option is that boat owners should be required to ensure their vessel is antifouled and maintained according to manufacturer’s specifications and provide evidence to a regional council when requested, such as copies of invoices etc. The cost to boat owners of meeting the unachievable standard, if it meant they had to antifoul their vessels at a shorter interval than recommended by the manufacturer, would be prohibitive. It would also be a waste of boat owners’ money because councils are proposing no rules to cover other pathways.”

7 Conclusion

Overall, 370 responses were received; 341 submitters completed the survey and responded to the main questions, and an additional 29 submitters responded (by email or a hardcopy version of the survey) but did not provide an answer to one or both of the survey questions.

There were nine key themes that were identified during the analysis of submitters comments, based on the questions posed in the discussion document. These were: 1) Marine protection is important; 2) Practicality and compliance; 3) Regional differences; 4) All pathways are important; 5) No practical tools (including sub-themes of the effectiveness of anti-fouling, a lack of haul-out facilities, and in-water cleaning rules); 6) Distribution of costs (including sub-themes of international/commercial vessels and ballast water); 7) National Plan needed; 8) Pests already established; and 9) Stationary vessels.

Of the 341 submitters who completed the survey, the preferred option for managing marine pests was Option 3 (go even further and make rules for other pathways too) for 126 submitters (37%), followed by Option 2 (lead the way with consistent rules for clean hull) for 102 submitters (30%), ‘none of the above’ for 69 submitters (20%), and finally Option 1 (the status quo) for 44 submitters (13%). There were some regional differences, with the preferences of Northland submitters being notably different to the other regions. Only 16% of Northland submitters preferring Option 2 compared with 39%, 46% and 47% of submitters from Auckland, Waikato, and Bay of Plenty, respectively. In contrast, 37% of Northland submitters chose ‘none of the above’ compared with only 8-9% of those from the other TON regions. The majority of submitters (205, 60%) were boat owners, and overall, their most commonly selected preference was Option 2 (64, 31%), followed by ‘none of the above’ (61, 30%) and Option 3 (46, 22%), whereas the vast majority of submitters who do not own a boat that lives in the water selected Option 3 (76, 60%).

The preferred option for hull-fouling rules, if they are to be developed, was Option 1 (clean hull at all times) for 144 submitters (42%), Option 2 (clean hull required only when moving) for 80 submitters (24%), ‘none of the above’ for 66 submitters (19%), and finally Option 3 (clean hull required only when moving to specially identified places) for 51 submitters. Again, the preferences of Northland submitters were notably different to the other regions. Specifically, while only 8-14% of submitters from Auckland, Waikato, and Bay of Plenty chose ‘none of the above’, the greatest proportion of Northland submitters (33%) selected this option. Overall, boat owners were not polarised on this issue, with relatively equal numbers of submitters choosing each of the four options. Specifically, boat owners preferred ‘none of the above’ (29%), Option 1 (27%), Option 2 (24%), and Option 3 (20%), whereas the vast majority of submitters (65%) who do not own a boat selected Option 1.

Key messages

Overall, there was a clear call for greater action to address marine pests across the TON regions from both the individuals and the agencies that responded, some of which represent considerable numbers of marine users. In addition, there is likely to be benefit in implementing a consistent approach across the regions because issues around practicality and the ease of compliance were of high importance to many submitters.

8 Appendix A – List of submitters

Table 3. Full names and organisations* of submitters grouped according to their main region of residence.

*Not all listed organisations are officially represented by the listed individual and these must therefore be taken as private submissions.

NORTHLAND

Full name	Organisation
Steve Sinclair	S.V.Crazyhorse
Irene Middleton	Ramboll New Zealand
Robert Powell
Nigel Brown
Lorinda Robinson
Scott Gavin
Donna Marie Buck
Nico Sieling
Mark Huggins
Max Haag
David Dalziel
Don Barker
Antony Lydiard
Tim Bingham
Anonymous
Geoff Cunningham
Gary Tettelbach
Mariao Hohaia
Bridget Marsh
Matthew
Richard Israel	Northland Sea Kayaking
James McGlone	Outward Bound Fishing
Guy Carnaby
Jack Hamilton
Gregory Hayes	NZ Federation of Commerceial Fisherman
Michael Paul Bowker
Isabel Krauss
Amanda Griffin
Carl Mather
Tony Milicich
Bruce Cartwriht
Tim Workman
B J Chetham	Patuharakeke
Antje Muller
Gary Brian Reti
Hori Puturangi Mahanga
Gillian Durham
John Durham
Jeanette Harris
Klaus-Peter Kurz	Russell Mooring Owners & Ratepayers
Warwick Goldstone
Guy Wilson
Anonymous
Peter Williams	Kerikeri Cruising Club
Gary John Underwood	Russell Boat Club NZ
Richard Duley
Neil Forrester
David and Avril Warren
Wayne Monk
Pip Todd
Lucy Bilyard
Warwick Petty
Tai Petersen
Clive Nothling
Anne Walker
Allan Luckman
Ross Wagener
John Buck
Kevin Philpott
Graham Gallaghan	Northland Fish and Game
Charles Stephen Western	Kingfisher Yacht Charters
Brian Candy
Jim Ashby
Margaret Bishop
Samara Nicholas	Experiencing Marine Reserves
Steve Croft
John Grant
Kim Borgstrom
Lance Dent
Donald Beillingham
William Harold Moloney
John Fugler
Philip Lissaman
Bruce Taylor
Chris Galbraith	Far North Holdings Limited
Victor Claud Holloway
Arnold Maunsell	Nga Hapu ki Waitangi
A W Newton
Peter Boyd
Karl Fuller
Garth Craig
Dean Wright
Michael John McGlynn
Jan Henry	Fish Forever
Alan Martienssen
Rolf Mueller-Glodde
Kelly Mabee
Gareth Doull
Scarlett Bodnar
Anna Clarke
Cynthia Matthews
Pete Richards
Ben Tombs
Robert Van pierce
Rowan Tautari	Te Whakapiko hapu
Ali Judd
Anne Russell
Bruce William Mauchline
Sarah Granich
David Tiller
Rene De Vries
Kerry Payne
Robyn Parker
John Martin	Sail South Pacific
F D Godbert	Fish Forever
Stephen Rush	Te Runanga o Whaingaroa
Rodney Dey
Michael Ludbrook
Doug Buchan
Anthony Paul Dunlop
Vibeke Wright	Marsden Maritime Holdings Ltd
Claire Braiden
Ian Blackwell
Caitlin Gray
K Crosbley
Ron Cousins
John Booth
Hilton Ward
Victoria Froude	Bay of Islands Maritime Park Incorporated Society
Nicholas Wells
Judy McHardy	Bushmans friend. LTD

AUCKLAND

Full name	Organisation
Keith Ingram
Matt Paulin	Neptunes Gear Ltd
Murray Arthur
Mels Barton
Shaun Lee
Brittany Mathis
Dean
Michael Backhurst
Wayne Radford	RnR Charters Ltd
Stephanie Railey	RnR Charters Ltd
H K
Carina Sim-Smith
Colin Graham Swabey
Jonathan Cole	Hobsonville Marina
Mike Ure
John Snashall
K W Salmon	K W Salmon
Neil K Williams
Michael McKeown
Martin Baker
Keren Spong
Catherine Lea
Brett Green
Kimberley Margaret
Edwin Ainley
Zoe Annys Allan
Alienor Izri
Christopher John Field
C Hawkins
Roderick Vickery
Edward (Ted) Marcus Bosch	yachtclub
Neville Mace
Pani Gleeson	Nga Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara (Ngati Whatua o Kaipara)
Scott Lomas	Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority
Scott Trask	Western Computers
Andy Winter
Simon Briscoe
Boud Hammelburg	Weiti Boating Club
John Wicks
Antony Barker
Anonymous
Dennis George
Nerine Walbran
Anonymous
Chris Hamblin
Christopher Hood
Laura Richardson
Malcolm Woolmore	Tainui
Bob Hessey
Maria Heer	Waiheke High School
Taryn Wilks	Sustainable Aotea
Thomas Malcolm	Puna Consultants Ltd
Chad Thompson
David Melrose	David Melrose Design Marine Ltd.
Evert B Metz
Allen Moore
richard hart
Ann Franich
Anonymous
Lucy Underwood
Grant Brown	Sandspit Marina Society
Hugh O'Reilly
Justin Hamilton
Mike Leyland
D Dolbel
John Ellingham
John Welsford	Engineering and Marine Design Ltd
Shaun Holmes
Shane Wright	UoA
Dan Breen	AUT
Neil Bramley
Sharron Todd
James Thompson Hudson
Anonymous
Simon Adamson
James
Joe Nowak	Marathon Products Ltd
Graeme Haszard
Anonymous
Marea Gorter
Iain Newton
Lyn Happy
Wayne Blair
Kat Garrett
Pieter deBruis
Jerome Pretorius
Bryan Connell	Riko Boat Charters
Simba Mtakwa
Mila Mionnet
Quentin Allan	AUT
Danny Brown
Ben Skelton
Terry McCarthy
Matthew Macdonald
David Charles Smith Roberts
Arielle Rae Aguilar
Patrick O'Meara	Tamaki Estuary Protection Society Inc
Darren Knott
Andrew Wardman
Kim McNamara
Aamon Chetty	Isthmus
Elizabeth Norquay
Helen Gregan
Steve Davies
Brian Feldtman
James Andrews	Ngati Paoa
Warren Edwin Crook
Nick Beveridge	Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated
Tina Paye
Peter Crane
Tony Simpson
Tayla-Paris Tabrum
Jenny Dare
Peter Sharps
Zack Fell
Poi Teei
Glenn Aguitar	Unitec
David Hollingsworth	Marina Consultants Ltd
Chris Galbraith	NZMOA
Kevin Pugh
Marcus Cameron	Tonkin+Taylor
Ian Duncan
New Zealand Defence Force	New Zealand Defence Force
Alison Undorf-Lay	Sanford Limited

WAIKATO

Full name	Organisation
Chris pevreal
Glenn Clough	Marine Protection Solutions
Anonymous
Joe Kuizinas
Lionel Gibbs
Mitch Pascoe
Guy Banhidi	Dive Revive Ltd
John Sanford	Waikato Regional Council Coromandel Catchment Committee
Mitchell Edwards	Thames Sailing Club
Anne Stewart Ball	Nil
Elizabeth M Young
Bruce McKenzie
David Munday	Whitianga Marina Society Inc
Brian Gilliland	TYPBC
Alison Denton
Peter Abrahamson	Whitianga Canal Management Ltd
Paula Thompson	Ngati Paoa
Messina Waitaci
Luke Turner
Dr Kate James
Leslie Vyfhuis	Thames-Coromandel District Councill
Tom Hollings, Exec. Officer	Coromandel Marine Farmers Association

BAY OF PLENTY

Full name	Organisation
William Dyck
Bill Faulkner
Gregg Marchant	Ocean Protection Foundation
Helen Coatsworth
Peter Goad
Murray John McAlonan
Andy Price
Murray Grainger
Sam Dunlop
Russ Hawkins	Fat Boy Charters Ltd
Reuben Fraser	Bay of Plenty Regional Council
Keith Taylor	Carson Taylor Co Ltd
Philippa Judith Howcroft
Te Peara Webster	All Iwi
Richard James (Chair)	Tauranga Forest and Bird
Kate Graeme
Sunny Peeters
Karan Alten
Cara Venter	PVT
Andrew Knowles
Peter Hughes
Roger John Rushton	TYPBC
Adam yates
Ramon Carter
Graeme burton
Bruce Goodwin
Anna Barnes
Geoff Inwood
Talbot Munro
Christopher Noel Battershill	University of Waikato
Rex Fairweather	Self employed
Kevin B Johnson	Florida Tech/University of Waikato
Paul Mitchell
Peter Vitasovich	Whakatohea Mussels (Opotiki) Ltd.
John Wilson	Whakatohea Mussels (Opotiki) Ltd.
Tracey Blackwell
Carl Smith
Doug Esterman
Gun Caundle
Bill van der Vlerk
Ray Findlay
Nick Wrinch	Kensington Gardens
Tracy Scherer	Seahorse Equipment Ltd.
Jo Robertson
Tony Arnold	Tauranga Bridge Marina
John Gray
Julie Bailey
John Crisp
Sam Weiss
Phil Wardale	Tauranga City Council

ELSEWHERE IN NEW ZEALAND

Name	Organisation/iwi
James Higgins	Sanford
Peter Lawless	The Lawless Edge Ltd
Jeannine Fischer
Chris Woods	NIWA
David Webb	Marlborough District Council
Craig Nasey
David Owen
Jono Underwood	Marlborough District Council
Rob Greenaway
Viki Moore
Bruce polkinghorne
Richard Morris
Paul Wilson
David John Clark
Alice McNatty	Hawke's Bay Regional Council
Alex Halliwell	Student, Victoria University of Wellington
Davor Bejakovich	Greater Wellington Regional Council
Lu Maultsaid
Graham Sullivan	Environment Canterbury
Ian Davidson	Cawthron
New Zealand Marine Sciences Society
Dave Taylor	Aquaculture New Zealand

OVERSEAS/REGION NOT GIVEN

Full name	Organisation/Iwi
Nigel Fox
Omer Aksoy
Juliane Chetham	Patuharakeke Te Iwi Trust Board
Klaus Kurz
Adrian Pettit
Hugh Rihari
Mere Kepa
Colin Summers
Fritz Scharnweber
Toni Lloyd
Pete McNabb
Ray Chaprieu
Sabbir
Daniel Ross
Lee Cahill
Duke George
Ashneha
David Collins
Toni Stevenson
Anthony Good
Steven Farrar
Peter Lord
Akioti Rishal Lal
Bill Maxwell
Malcalm Kidd
Tony Cox
Peter Busfield	Executive Director, NZ Marine Industry Association
Nigel Tutt
Tame teRangi	For and on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua
Sandra Barber
Peter Charles Rolfe
U Schmutzler
Vic Campbell
Denise Campbell
John Booth

[2] The funding is not limited to signatory hapū. It is a contestable fund open to tangata whenua of Taitokerau.

[3] “Plan change” includes variations, changes to the regional plan or regional policy statement, and a new regional plan or regional policy statement.

[5] Independent from the Northland Regional Council.

[6]Commissioners with an understanding of Te Ao Māori/ Māori concepts and values associated with natural and physical resources, knowledge of tikanga Māori and a process for identifying conflict of interests

[7] This is in addition to the fund supporting the review and preparation of HEMPs

[8] The funding is not limited to signatory hapū. It is a contestable fund open to tangata whenua of Taitokerau.

[9] $2,148 excl gst per person as at January 2019.

[10] The funding is not limited to signatory hapū. It is a contestable fund open to tangata whenua of Taitokerau.

[11] The facilitator is a dispute resolution practitioner who helps the parties reach their own resolution in mediation, but does not decide the outcome. The facilitator must be impartial and independent, fairly and objectively listen to the areas of disagreement and help the parties to identify common ground and areas where agreement can be reached.

[12] A freshwater quantity limit describes the amount of water in a freshwater management unit which is required to meet freshwater objectives. For rivers and stream, it includes an allocation limit and a minimum flow (or other flow/s). For other aquifers and lakes, it must include an allocation limit a minimum water level (or other level/s).

[13] However, Horticulture New Zealand has appealed against the advice notes under the limits which set out how the allocation limits will be determined and applied.

[14] This did not address the merits of the Proposed Plan managing the use of GE/GMOs.

Councillor Mike Finlayson	Councillor Bill Shepherd	Councillor Penny Smart
Councillor Joce Yeoman	Patuharakeke Te Iwi Trust Board, Juliane Chetham	Te Uri o Hau Settlement Trust, Georgina Connelly
Ngāti Kuta, Patukeha, Michelle Elboz	Ngāti Kuta Patukeha, Shirley Hakaraia	Hokianga o Ngā Hapū Whānau, Patu Hohepa
Te Rūnanga-Ā-Iwi-O-Ngāpuhi, Mike Kake	Ngātiwai Trust Board, Henry Murphy	Te Parawhau Hapū Authority Charitable Trust, Mira Norris
Te Rūnanga O Ngāti Rehia, Nora Rameka	Te Rūnanga-Ā-Iwi-O-Ngāpui, Fred Sadler	Te Whakapiko Hapū, Rowan Tautari
Hokianga o Ngā Hapū Whānau, Rudy Taylor	Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Kuri/Te Hiku O Te Ika Marae Trust, Bundy Waitai	Te Uri o Hau Settlement Trust, Malcolm Welsh
Ngāti Tara, Victor Holloway	Te Rūnanga O Ngāti Hine Jaycee Tipene-Thomas	Te Rūnanga O Ngāti Rehia, Kipa Munro

Stakeholder	Date(s)
Email
MPI national stakeholder list	· 18/03/2019
Marine biosecurity partnerships (Fiordland and TOS)	· 18/03/2019
Internal MPI to all MPI marine experts	· 18/03/2019 · 4/04/2019
Internal DOC to all marine and biosecurity staff	· 2/05/2019
Auckland Council stakeholder email list	· 15/03/2019 · 24/05/2019
Mahurangi Harbour marine farmer email list	· 16/04/2019
Auckland Council iwi representative list	· 19/03/2019
Northland mooring register list + Northland Regional Council iwi and stakeholder list + Northland territorial authorities	· 20/03/2019 · 7/05/2019
Waikato marine stakeholder and iwi email list	· April
Bay of Plenty Regional Council Toi Moana to Tame Malcom
Media release
Auckland Council website	· 19/03/2019
Northland Regional Council website	· 18/03/2019
Bay of Plenty Regional Council Toi Moana website	· 21/03/2019
Waikato Regional Council website	· 18/03/2019
Printed Material
Discussion documents and pamphlets distributed at all Auckland high-use boat ramps and marinas through an extensive outreach programme	· Throughout consultation
Discussion documents and pamphlets distributed to all Northland marinas, some boating/fishing clubs and haul outs	· Throughout consultation
Discussion documents and pamphlets distributed to all Northland Regional Council offices, posters at key sites	· Throughout consultation
Discussion documents and pamphlets distributed to Waikato mooring holders, community groups and industry	· During April
Available from all Waikato Harbour Masters and Waikato Regional Council reception	· Throughout consultation
Public Event
Orewa Community Centre (Auckland)	· 17/04/2019
Westhaven Marina (Auckland)	· 18/04/2019
Buckland and Eastern beaches Memorial Hall (Auckland)	· 10/04/2019
Henderson Council Chamber (Auckland)	· 2/05/2019
Bay of Plenty Regional Council Toi Moana hosted public drop-in workshops	· 29 April and 1 May – Tauranga · 30 April – Whakatane · 2 May - Rotorua
Hutchwilco boatshow stand, Auckland	· 16-19 May
Social Media
Biosecurity New Zealand Facebook page and Ko Tatou “This is Us”	· 19/03/2019
Northland Regional Council Facebook page	· 12 April + reminders: · 19, 29 April · 15, 23 May
Waikato Regional Council Facebook page	· 19/03/2019
Bay of Plenty Regional Council Toi Moana Facebook page	· 14/05/2019
Auckland Council Biodiversity Facebook page
Sailword Facebook page
Westhaven Marina Facebook Page
Webpage
Sailworld.com	· 17/04/2019
bionet.com with links to further information	· Throughout consultation
Other
Auckland	· 2/04/2019
Auckland Council iwi hui
Bay of Plenty Regional Council Toi Moana Key Stakeholder workshop	· 14/05/2019
Waikato iwi
Waikato territorial authorities	· April

TITLE:	Record of Actions – 11 July 2019
ID:	A1229879
From:	Sally Bowron, Strategy, Governance and Engagement Team Admin/PA

TITLE:	Presentation: Northland Inc
ID:	A1229881
From:	Auriole Ruka, Kaiwhakahaere Hononga Māori – Māori Relationships Manager

TITLE:	Presentation: Tane Whakapiripiri project
ID:	A1231406
From:	Auriole Ruka, Kaiwhakahaere Hononga Māori – Māori Relationships Manager

TITLE:	Presentation: Te Puni Kokiri Whenua Māori Programme
ID:	A1233990
From:	Auriole Ruka, Kaiwhakahaere Hononga Māori – Māori Relationships Manager

TITLE:	Continuity of Māori Technical Advisory Group
ID:	A1229905
From:	Auriole Ruka, Kaiwhakahaere Hononga Māori – Māori Relationships Manager

TITLE:	MTAG: Update on Mana Whakahono a Rohe
ID:	A1229887
From:	Ben Lee, Strategic Policy and Planning Manager

TITLE:	TTMAC review and membership
ID:	A1233554
From:	Auriole Ruka, Kaiwhakahaere Hononga Māori – Māori Relationships Manager

TITLE:	Funding for Scholarships and for Iwi and Hapū Environmental Management Plans
ID:	A1234111
From:	Auriole Ruka, Kaiwhakahaere Hononga Māori – Māori Relationships Manager

TITLE:	Water Storage and Use Project
ID:	A1203661
From:	Darryl Jones, Economist and Andrew Carvell, Project Development Manager

TITLE:	Update: Climate Change
ID:	A1230839
From:	Justin Murfitt, Strategic Policy Specialist

TITLE:	Reviewing Freshwater Quantity Limits for Fully Allocated Water Bodies
ID:	A1232045
From:	Ben Tait, Policy Specialist - Water

TITLE:	Appeals to the Proposed Regional Plan for Northland
ID:	A1232131
From:	Michael Day, Natural Resources Policy Manager

TITLE:	Report: Te Taitokerau Maori and Council Working Party marae-based hui
ID:	A1203643
From:	Sally Bowron, Strategy, Governance and Engagement Team Admin/PA

TITLE:	Working Party Updates
ID:	A1203607
From:	Sally Bowron, Strategy, Governance and Engagement Team Admin/PA