Extending Kaikōura Pāua Season Needs To Be Based On Research
Article – David Hill – Local Democracy Reporter
More research is needed before extending Kaikura's pua season, says a Kaikura Marine Guardian.
Kaikōura Marine Guardians have raised concerns with the Oceans and Fisheries Minister over the impact of an extended pāua season.
Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones announced on April 8 the Kaikōura pāua fishery will open to recreational pāua-gathering for a four-month season from May 1.
But Te Korowai o Te Tai ō Marokura secretary Gina Solomon said the Kaikōura Marine Guardians have written to Mr Jones to express their concerns.
''We weren't happy with the decision being made to open for an extended season without doing any research.
''We don't have any data on what impact this opening might have on the fishery.''
The pāua fishery was devastated in the 7.8 magnitude earthquake in 2016, leading to the closure of the fishery.
It was reopened in 2022 over the summer holiday period, but it was overfished, leading to restricted seasons from April to June since then.
The season will run until August 31, with a daily bag limit is three pāua per species from Marfells Beach to Conway River.
The minimum size remains at 130mm for blackfoot pāua and 80mm for yellowfoot pāua.
Ms Solomon, who is also a Kaikōura Marine Guardian, said she has a simply philosophy for sticking to the limits.
''Te Korowai advocates fishing for a feed, not the freezer.
''We should be treating pāua the same as other seasonal produce and enjoy it fresh and while the season is open.''
An online survey of 368 people conducted by Te Korowai last year found an overwhelming majority believed it was the community's responsibility to protect the pāua fishery and the marine coastline.
A majority of respondents said decisions should be based on science.
Te Korowai was established in 2005 by Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura and the wider community to advocate for Kaikōura's marine environment.
In a press release, Mr Jones said the May 1 to August 31 season was likely to become standard, subject to ongoing discussions with the Kaikōura Marine Guardians, iwi, and the community.
Fisheries New Zealand spokesperson Rob Gear said the agency works closely with the Kaikōura Marine Guardians to manage the pāua fishery.
Ongoing surveys have shown the pāua fishery has rebuilt well following the earthquakes, the fisheries management acting director said.
Modeling indicated the catch settings are sustainable and will allow the recovery of the fishery to continue, he said.
The Hikurangi marine reserve, the Waiopuka (Wakatu Quay) rāhui, three mātaitai, and a taiāpure remain closed to pāua fishing.
The Oaro-Haumuri Taiāpure will be open for the season, but has lower daily limits and a bigger minimum size.
More information can be found at mpi.govt.nz/fishing-aquaculture/recreational-fishing/fishing-rules/kaikoura-fishing-rules/.
LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
11-06-2025
- Scoop
Report On Outcomes For Tamariki And Rangatahi Māori In The Oranga Tamariki System – A Story Of Consequence
Press Release – Aroturuki Tamariki Aroturuki Tamariki Chief Executive Arran Jones says the report is a story of consequence of needs not addressed by a system that is not always able to work together to get the right support in place at the right time. In the first of a new annual report series – Outcomes for tamariki and rangatahi Māori and their whānau in the oranga tamariki system – Aroturuki Tamariki | Independent Children's Monitor found tamariki (children) and rangatahi (young people) Māori and their whānau are over-represented in the oranga tamariki system and the system is letting them down. While Oranga Tamariki has a pivotal role, the system includes NZ Police and the Ministries of Health, Education and Social Development. Most tamariki and rangatahi Māori have no involvement in the oranga tamariki system. But when they do, there are increasing levels of over-representation – almost 50 percent of reports of concern made to Oranga Tamariki are about tamariki and rangatahi Māori, they make up two-thirds of those in care, and more than three quarters of those in youth justice custody. Aroturuki Tamariki Chief Executive Arran Jones says the report is a story of consequence – of needs not addressed by a system that is not always able to work together to get the right support in place at the right time. 'The needs of tamariki and rangatahi then multiply as they escalate through the system,' Mr Jones said. Data shows 92 percent of rangatahi referred to a youth justice family group conference in 2023/24 had concerns raised about their safety and wellbeing when they were younger. 'Tamariki and rangatahi come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki because someone has raised concerns about alleged abuse, or their wellbeing. This is the moment to get the right services and supports in place so tamariki and rangatahi don't escalate through the system,' says Mr Jones Escalation through the system can eventually mean involvement with the Police – and Police data shows a difference in the severity of proceedings against tamariki and rangatahi Māori in 2023/24: tamariki Māori aged 10–13 are less likely to be referred to alternative action or given a warning and more likely to be prosecuted or referred to a youth justice FGC than others rangatahi Māori aged 14–17 are less likely to get a warning or be referred to alternative action and more likely to be prosecuted than others. The outcomes for tamariki and rangatahi Māori currently involved with the oranga tamariki system are less positive than those for Māori with no involvement. In 2022, tamariki and rangatahi Māori: in care or custody, achieved education qualifications at almost half the rate of Māori with no involvement in the oranga tamariki system, were significantly more likely to be hospitalised for self-harm than those with no involvement in care, used mental health and addiction services at nearly five times the rate of Māori with no involvement. Rangatahi Māori in youth justice custody used these at 15 times the rate – 60 percent of rangatahi Māori in youth justice custody used mental health and addiction services. Considering 92 percent of these rangatahi had reports of concern made about their safety and wellbeing when they were younger, this is no surprise. 'The outcomes for young Māori adults, aged 27–30, who were involved in the oranga tamariki system as children are sobering. The data paints a stark picture of the consequence of the oranga tamariki system not doing more to help. Māori adults who had been in the system as children are less likely to be employed, less likely to have a driver licence, more likely to be on a benefit, more likely to be in emergency housing, and more likely to be hospitalised for self-harm than Māori who had no involvement. Mortality rates are double or triple those of Māori with no involvement in the oranga tamariki system for vehicle accidents and for self-harm (including suicide),' says Mr Jones. The report also identifies the importance of breaking the cycle. For Māori parents (aged 27–30 years) who had previously been in care themselves, 68 percent have children involved with Oranga Tamariki in some way and one in eight have had one or more children in care at some point. 'This report highlights initiatives and ways of working that provide a pathway ahead for all government agencies. Working with tamariki and rangatahi alongside their whānau, building trusted long-term relationships, looking outside of organisational silos to understand their wider needs and providing services across government and community agencies. To paraphrase one of the providers we heard from, this is where the magic happens,' says Mr Jones. The initiatives highlighted in the report include a statutory youth justice delegation from Oranga Tamariki to Whakapai Hauora by Rangitāne o Manawatū. Whakapai Hauora provides wraparound support to rangatahi Māori who have offended, reporting only one referral proceeding to a court order. Some rangatahi who have completed programmes have returned as mentors and one rangatahi is now employed by the retailer he offended against. In Auckland, Kotahi te Whakaaro, brings together government and non-government organisations. It works alongside whānau to support tamariki and rangatahi who have offended, to prevent further offending. They look across housing, schooling, health and financial challenges and put supports in place. We heard about significant reductions in reoffending, with one rangatahi telling us 'I think stealing is just an idiot move now'. In Porirua, Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira has built a strong relationship with Oranga Tamariki. They reported that a combination of early intervention initiatives for whānau who come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki has resulted in a 21 percent reduction in renotifications (reports of concern) – to the lowest rate in Porirua in four years. 'Before tamariki and rangatahi come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki they will have been seen by education and health staff and the parents may be known to social housing and welfare. It should not take offending, or an incident of abuse or neglect to get the support that was always needed,' says Mr Jones. For this report, we looked at the performance under the Oranga Tamariki Act – this Act places specific obligations on Police and Oranga Tamariki. It is clear there are opportunities to do better and this report highlights some of those. 'Data shows that tamariki and rangatahi Māori in the system today have similar hopes and aspirations for their future as those not in system. As one rangatahi we met with told us they'd 'just like to grow up successful and, if I find the right person, to give my kids what I couldn't have',' Mr Jones said. Read the report on our website Aroturuki Tamariki – the Independent Children's Monitor checks that organisations supporting and working with tamariki, rangatahi and their whānau, are meeting their needs, delivering services effectively, and improving outcomes. We monitor compliance with the Oranga Tamariki Act and the associated regulations, including the National Care Standards. We also look at how the wider system (such as early intervention) is supporting tamariki and rangatahi under the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Act. Aroturuki Tamariki works closely with its partners in the oversight system, Mana Mokopuna – Children and Young People's Commission, and the Office of the Ombudsman.
NZ Herald
10-06-2025
- NZ Herald
Law & Society: Retroactive laws, real-time consequences
David Harvey: "Citizens lose confidence in the fairness and integrity of the legal system when laws can be changed after the fact to alter rights and obligations." Photo / Getty Images The courts and judges have come in for criticism of late. Roger Partridge of the New Zealand Initiative was critical late last year of recent decisions of the Supreme Court in a lengthy paper entitled 'Who makes the law?' – the obvious answer being Parliament. New Zealand First MP Shane Jones, likewise was personally critical of a High Court judge last year and 'had words' with the Attorney-General Judith Collins about his comments. Last month at a Law Association lunch, Jones criticised what he called the 'Americanisation' of the judiciary and of judicial activism, arguing it is Parliament that is sovereign. But what happens when Parliament itself travels outside its lane? What remedies are there for legislative overreach when Parliament is sovereign? An amendment to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act has been introduced. The act prescribes a number of circumstances where financiers have a duty of disclosure to customers. If disclosure rules are breached, the lender forfeits interest rates and fees on the transaction. Two banks, ANZ and ASB, failed to make proper disclosure and are subject to claims on behalf of 173,000 customers – a sizable cohort. Court proceedings are well under way. The amendment is retrospective in that it is designed to minimise the liability of the banks for actions that were unlawful at the time. So Parliament retrospectively cures their unlawful acts and the 173,000 potential claimants lose out. Parliament can do anything it likes, according to Jones. The only problem is there are rules about retrospective legislation. Section 12 of the Legislation Act 2019 states very simply: 'Legislation does not have retrospective effect.' The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 also makes it clear there should be no retroactive penalties, though that rule is more applicable to criminal cases. The issue of whether laws have provided retroactive penalties have troubled judges, academics and law students in examinations for some years. One of the core principles of the rule of law is that individuals must be able to know in advance what conduct is legal or illegal. Retrospective laws can punish people for actions that were legal when committed, which violates this predictability. In the case of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance's Act, the retrospective law deprives 173,000 people of a remedy they would have had. Similarly, the retrospective changes to the pay equity process have halted 33 pay equity claims affecting many thousands of workers. Citizens lose confidence in the fairness and integrity of the legal system when laws can be changed after the fact to alter rights and obligations. This can foster fear and uncertainty. Some argue retrospective laws violate fundamental human rights and democratic principles, as they remove the ability of individuals to make informed choices based on existing laws. Although retrospective laws are generally discouraged, there are rare cases where they are justified – such as when correcting legal loopholes or addressing past injustices. However, they remain controversial and should be used with extreme caution. Is there a remedy for this overreach? No, other than by way of the ballot box. We have no overriding constitution. We have no court that can say Parliament is in breach of the rules and challenging a fundamental premise of the rule of law and that changes such as those to the credit act and pay equity regime are 'unconstitutional'. But perhaps the problem is deeper. Perhaps we rely on Parliament too much to solve our problems. When a problem comes up it seems the government is the first port of call. Perhaps if there was less reliance on Parliament 'fixing' things, the risk of retrospective laws would be much smaller.
RNZ News
10-06-2025
- RNZ News
Marlborough residents speak against council's preferred water plan
By Kira Carrington, Local Democracy Reporter Brendan Kearney speaks at the Marlborough District Council's Local Water Done Well hearing. Photo: LDR/Kira Carrington Residents have spoken against the Marlborough District Council's preferred water services model at a Local Water Done Well hearing on Monday. The Government requires councils to choose from five water service delivery options ‒ a modified status quo (an in-house council department), a single council-controlled organisation, a multi-council-controlled organisation, and two types of trusts. The Marlborough District Council's preferred option is to create a standalone Water Services Organisation owned and controlled by the council. The council said it would find greater efficiencies to deliver better service at a lower cost, and have more borrowing capacity to maintain and improve the region's water infrastructure. But Marlborough residents aren't convinced. Of about 45 submissions made, 58 percent wanted to keep water services in-house, compared to 13 percent who preferred the standalone organisation. The remainder did not indicate a preference. Five people spoke on their submissions at a hearing in the council chamber on Monday, and they were all opposed to a standalone organisation. Brendan Kearney, who used to be chief executive of a council-controlled organisation in Canterbury, said there was no proof that a separate organisation would be more efficient, and setting up and funding a separate entity could cost ratepayers more. It would "inevitably duplicate some overhead costs", Kearney said. He said he saw no reason for water services to be removed from a council that had maintained its water systems relatively well. "[Water] assets are in good or very good condition. That's a credit to the current council and past councils as well. Council also has low debt relative to its peers. "This is compelling evidence, in my view, that the council has performed well and will continue to do so." To create a separate organisation, Kearney said the council would need to appoint directors, manage a new relationship with the organisation, and manage the organisation's own agenda. "A standalone company is no guarantee of good governance." Kearney said there also needed to be balance in who footed the water infrastructure bill between the ratepayers of today and of tomorrow. "It's unfair to gift hundreds of millions of dollars ... to the next generations completely debt free. That means the past generations paid too much. "On the other hand, it's unfair to get those assets, billions of dollars of assets, fully debt funded ... it's unfair on future generations. "Something in between those two extremes needs to happen." Submitter Lauchy Hynd said that creating a separate organisation to take on debt outside the council books was not sustainable. "What happens when we default?" Hynd said. "We're leveraging [water assets] by three to five times to borrow money against them. "This looks to me like Three Waters from the back door. "You can kick the can down the road and borrow recklessly, but I appeal to you to act boldly on behalf of the people." Submitters also voiced concerns about allowing an unelected and "unaccountable" organisation to take control of water services. "How do we maintain the ownership and the status of [water] assets in the hands of the people of Marlborough, when we're divesting them to an unelected group?" Hynd said. Submitter Bob Watson said he was worried about the potential to more easily privatise a separate organisation, pointing how the United Kingdom's water management became privatised. Ten regional water authorities were formed in 1974, which the UK government then sold to the private sector in 1989. "I think that the potential for private ownership ... basically our water utilities to be sold off to another entity, and for us to lose the democratic voice, would be terrible," Watson said. "I like the idea that [we're] here with people that have represented the community who can speak for us." The coalition Government had previously said that privatisation of water services was not on the table. The council would make its final decision on water services delivery on June 26, and submit its plan to the Government for approval by 3 September . LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
