Hauraki hysteria: How do we cut through the heat over Tīkapa Moana? 

Rammed, backdoor, sleazy? What are we talking about this week? Don’t let the opening words fool you, we’re talking about the future of the Hauraki Gulf. And no, this column isn’t R-rated. 

The New York Times put out a story this week about eight things you should never say in a relationship. One of the key phrases that will not be well received? “Calm down.” As the paper says, “urging your partner to take it easy almost always has the opposite effect.” So, we’re not quite sure how to tell some of our fellow lovers of the Hauraki Gulf to take it easy in some of their language about this precious piece of water. Goodness knows, we don’t want to make things worse. 

This week, things got heated when various environmental groups found out about a planned amendment to the Hauraki Gulf/Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill. This amendment was confirmed by the office of Conservation Minister Tama Potaka in a Sunday press release.   

It is minor. It will allow a small amount of ring net fishing to occur in designated protected areas. The release doesn’t confirm exactly where, it simply says: 

Limited ring-net fishing will continue for a small number of fishers in protected areas who supply local communities. This method has very little impact on the environment beyond the target species. 

The small nature of this amendment was not reflected in the reaction of several Gulf-focused groups who shared their feelings with media on Sunday. 

WWF said that it was a devastating blow. “To have these last-minute changes rammed through as a result of sleazy, backdoor lobbying… is a complete and utter disgrace.” 

The Hauraki Gulf Forum (a statutory governance body with no fishing representatives on it) was more measured. It says the changes raise significant concerns and worries that “opening up high protection areas to commercial fishing undermines years of collaboration...to ensure that the Gulf is protected and restored.” 

But for a really balanced and pragmatic view, we would salute (but not fully agree with) the position taken by Raewyn Peart in Newsroom on Thursday. Raewyn represents the Environmental Defence Society, and she has spent many years focused on Gulf issues. She argues for not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. She also got her assessment of what ring net fishing is largely right. 

We have not seen the amended version of the Bill. Until we see that version, we cannot comment on the detail, beyond what is in the public domain from the Minister’s press release. However, we can tell you what ring net fishing really is and why the amendments are not a “devastating blow” to the health of the Gulf.   

Ring net fishing is a small-scale fishing method. It typically happens on small boats, no bigger than six metres. You could fairly describe it as artisan fishing, with a fisher putting a net into the water circled around a school of the fish he or she wants to catch. It happens at night in shallow areas where fish congregate in a small number of discrete locations during the winter, returning year after year, which is why access to these areas is so important. It is a very safe method for birds, dolphins and reef habitats – typically there is no bycatch. The net is hauled by hand and the entire fishing event takes no more than 40 minutes. The fishers using this method in the Hauraki Gulf are the small operators who supply good quality seafood daily to Auckland communities. These fishers would be forced out of the business they have dedicated their lives to if it wasn’t for this amendment. We are relieved on their behalf. 

But what about the potential moral hazard of creating an exception by allowing any type of commercial fishing in a protected area? 

The answer here is to focus on the purpose of the restrictions. The purpose is to restore the health of the Hauraki Gulf.  We have two things to say about that. 

Firstly, a line must always be drawn somewhere. For protected areas, that can be about who is doing the fishing (commercial, recreational or customary) or it can be about scale and impact. Why should a small-scale commercial fisher be punished when he or she is having a minimal impact and is actively and extensively monitored? Restrictions should be responsive, science-led and focused on their wider purpose. That requires some flexibility in thinking and approach.  

Secondly, the hard truth is we will not restore the health or mauri (spirit, life force) of the Gulf by banning commercial fishing. Bluntly, commercial fishing is not the problem. Runoff, pollution and sedimentation plus the impacts of climate change are the problems and all those who love the Gulf acknowledge this. Aucklanders can see it with their own eyes – the plumes of mud and silt that wash into the water after a rain event. And those are just the issues you can see. An average 3,726 tonnes of nitrogen are discharged into the Firth of Thames each year.    

To borrow a phrase from WWF, Aucklanders deserve better. Those Aucklanders also deserve to continue to have access to kaimoana from the waters on their own doorstep. That is what commercial fishing provides – seafood for all, with or without their own boat.   

Commercial fishing is contributing to solutions. We recently funded an additional two days of a baseline survey of the biodiversity of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park. This was carried out by NIWA and will help us to get a better understanding of what’s happening on the seafloor. While it’s not going to give us all the answers, it will get us a step closer to ensuring that management measures in the Gulf are based on robust information and science, which is what we’re all about. 

We love the Hauraki Gulf. It is beyond obvious to say we want to protect it. We do. And that means working together to focus on the real problems. Too much energy is being spent on blaming commercial fishing – in this case villainising a few very small-scale operators – which distracts from real solutions. Pointing fingers won’t help. Nor will using language like backdoor, rammed or sleazy – words that would be more at home in the lyrics of your average Prince song. 

What will make a difference is coming together to address the bigger issues affecting the health of these waters. We’re ready to collaborate and find practical solutions. We’ll say more on this topic when the full amended bill is in the public domain.