Dialogue: Don't judge Hauraki act by one unfortunate experience

The Whitianga waterways wrangle should not obscure the considerable virtues of new marine park legislation, writes MARJORIE VAN ROON*.

The controversy surrounding the Whitianga canal development has led to inaccurate comments about the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act. It is time to draw attention to the merits of the statute.

The act does not create an additional tier of statutory control or a requirement for consent beyond that encompassed by the Resource Management Act.

It provides for national policy statements that preside over and dictate to regional and district plans. The key sections of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act, sections seven and eight, must be treated as a national policy statement and as part of the New Zealand coastal policy statement. Therefore, they operate within the Resource Management Act hierarchy.

The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act does several important things. First, it recognises the natural unity of the gulf as defined by natural (not administrative) boundaries, both on land and at sea.

By contrast, the Resource Management Act divides the management of the Hauraki Gulf and its catchment between two regional councils and at least eight district and city councils. In addition, the gulf's resources are managed under separate statutes by diverse Government departments.

As the wellbeing of the gulf is determined by all human and natural activities on all land that drains into it, including the entire catchment under the the act is vital for integrated management.

Second, the act promotes the sort of cooperation between the gulf's many district, city and regional councils that the Resource Management Act enables but has never achieved because councils are administratively contained within their own geographic boundaries.

The act has extended this circle of cooperation to include Government departments, such as conservation and fisheries, and the many iwi within the park boundaries.

The Resource Management Act provides excellent opportunities for Maori council cooperation, but the level of Maori representation on most council committees has been inadequate. The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park forum has seven Maori in a total of 23 representatives.

In terms of managing the natural resource, only fish lie entirely outside the Resource Management Act (minerals lie partly outside). However, the way the Resource Management Act is implemented determines the quality of the habitat of these fish.

The Hauraki Gulf is home to some of New Zealand's finest recreational and commercial fisheries, and the opportunities for involving the public in fisheries management are seen to be limited. This new statute, which draws fisheries into a united management circle, is therefore vital to the integrated management of the gulf.

The Hauraki Gulf Forum can function as a communication hub for biophysical research that affects the whole gulf and crosses institutional boundaries.

Third, the act requires the forum to produce a list of strategic issues and, every three years, a state-of-the-environment report, drawing together information from councils, crown research institutes and universities, among others. This will focus the attention of the forum on up-to-date indicators of environmental deterioration that need to be fixed.

Last, by creating a national marine park, the act gives the gulf status that focuses the attention of visitors and residents. It provides the opportunity and channels for united efforts in promoting tourism and environmental education.

Vast numbers of overseas visitors pass through Auckland without experiencing the gulf. Promoting the marine park could reverse this trend.

Whitianga's presence outside the natural boundaries of the gulf but within the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act area may bring into question the rationale for including the eastern coast of the Coromandel within the park.

The sweep of offshore islands and long-shore currents at the mouth of the Hauraki Gulf extend down the eastern coast of the Coromandel.

Additionally, including the eastern Coromandel coastline avoids the awkward exclusion of half the Coromandel Peninsula from the park catchment. A single development might straddle both coasts of the peninsula and, therefore, require approvals that are half in and half out of the park if the eastern coastline were excluded.

Any new environmental statute needs transitional provisions for activities in progress at the time of enactment.

The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act contains some transitional provisions, but these do not cover some projects in progress, such as the Whitianga waterways. An amendment bill is being drafted because of this oversight.

It would be unfortunate if such an oversight were to bring into doubt the many positive attributes of the act or, for that matter, the Resource Management Act to which it is inseparably linked.

* Marjorie van Roon is a senior lecturer in integrated coastal catchment management at the University of Auckland.