An oceans strategy: “good process” and the possibly comprehensive framework:

Between 2000 and 2003 a framework for oceans management did emerge, roughly in accord with the timetable planned in the 2000 budget. It was not plain sailing, however.

Hodgson was a hands-on minister. He played an influential role in the progress of the oceans policy in the early 2000s, promoting what he called “good policy process.” 413 _{He was wary of departmental} agendas. Hodgson created an extra-departmental secretariat (comprised of departmental and local government secondments) reporting directly to him, rather than departments, and led by a Minfish secondee.414 _{The secretariat leadership adopted a process-driven and staged approach to the policy} development.415 _{A public consultation process was agreed in July 2000, based on a ministerial} advisory committee, but it took until March 2001 to appoint the committee.416 _{The committee} reported on 30 September 2001, having completed an extensive and expensive (approximately $1.5 million) nationwide consultation programme. Its report, entitled Healthy seas: Healthy society, contained aspirational statements about the desire for clean, productive and accessible oceans and

411 _{Risk, "An Oceans Policy for New Zealand: Why, What, How?". P.299.}

412 _{Cabinet paper CAB (00) M23/2c. See also Foster, "New Zealand's Oceans Policy." P.475}

413 _{“Good process will be essential to getting this together”. See speech to New Zealand Marine Sciences}

Society, Waikato University, 30 August 2000, http://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/managing-our-oceans (accessed 20/11/2012).

414 _{Lindsay Gow pers com, “He (Hodgson) was concerned about sectoral and departmental capture and related}

agendas biasing policy analysis of important cross sectoral issues such as oceans policy.”

415 _{See C.M. Risk, "Oceans Policy" (paper presented at the Wellington District Law Society, Wellington, 8 May}

2002)..———, "An Oceans Policy for New Zealand: Why, What, How?".

416 _{The Committee was chaired by ex-Governor General Dame Cath Tizard and comprised David McDowell,}

5: Oceans policy

noted the need for an inclusive, integrated and comprehensive management regime.417 _{It was} criticised as being too general.418 _{The oceans secretariat concurrently produced five working papers} between July 2000 and June 2002, dealing with process in fine detail.419

At the same time tensions had been building within the bureaucracy. These were acknowledged in the first suite of secretariat papers (released in March 2002) which referred to,

…lack of integration between legislation, policy, decision-making, and activities in the marine environment and, ...1.Differing, and sometimes conflicting, philosophical drivers and objectives across key statutes governing oceans management. 2. Some statutory gaps, particularly outside the 12 nautical mile limit. 3. Implementation difficulties, or a failure to implement current laws in an integrated and collaborative way by different agencies. 4. The need for better information.420 The internal image of the oceans work wasn’t helped by pressure to deliver more resources to a secretariat that for all intents and purposes operated as an independent unit under the direction of Hodgson. There was also a somewhat combative relationship between the secretariat leadership and departmental officials.421 _{While the secretariat reports helped support later work, nevertheless,} there was scepticism amongst departmental officials about the increasing scope of the policy work, and some frustration ministerially about slow progress.422

Hodgson had begun to realise that he needed to revert to senior public service oversight if he was to deliver something on oceans policy. Furthermore, senior public service managers were never entirely comfortable with being responsible for a specific area of policy development which they felt should lie with sector-specific agencies. From a departmental perspective things were getting rather messy, with confused accountability between the oceans secretariat, Minfish, DPMC, and MfE. Hodgson agreed with representations made by the head of DPMC and a deputy State Services Commissioner that funding and leadership of the oceans work should be allocated to MfE. 423 _{In June 2002 Hodgson} contacted the Deputy Secretary for the Ministry for the Environment, Lindsay Gow (then Acting CEO

417 _{MInisterial Advisory Committee On Oceans Policy, "Healthy Sea:Healthy Society: Towards an Oceans Policy}

for New Zealand," (Wellington: Ministerial Advisory Committee on Oceans Policy, 2001).

418 _{Foster, "New Zealand's Oceans Policy." P.476.}

419 _{MfE file PD OC 02-02-01. The topics were; problem definition, ministerial structure, context for policy, risks,}

overview of three-step process, project structure, report back, vision, seven high level policy issues, process structure and governance, project structure (detailed explanation), resourcing required by secretariat for Stage II, methodology for developing policy, Stage Two work programme, process to develop an oceans policy- timelines, consideration of seven high level policy issues. A file note from the Cabinet Office warned MfE (who had just taken over leadership of the work) that the papers deserved a “gobbledegook” award.

420 _{MfE file PD OC 02-02-01}

421 _{Lindsay Gow pers com, “There was a lot of talking and discussion and grand ideas and not much progress. In}

part this was because there was no solid departmental underpinning of the exercise and no serious policy work.”

422 _{Lindsay Gow ibid; MfE PD OC 02-02-01.}

423 _{MfE file PD OC-02-01-03 Volume 1. Memo SSC to Hodgson, “…responsibility for management at officials’}

level of stage II of the oceans project is to be allocated to the Ministry for the Environment as from 1 July 2002.”

5: Oceans policy

but just on the verge of handing over to a new CEO) and asked him to lead interdepartmental work.424 _{Hodgson asked for the work to be located within MfE, but not dominated by MfE staff.}425 Thus, later in 2002, the locus of support for ocean policy development shifted from a semi- independent secretariat to more senior public service-led operation hosted by MfE. Staff were seconded from five agencies (MfE, DoC, Minfish, MED, and TPK) with MfE and DoC contributing the substance of the operation. It was overseen by a steering committee of senior public servants from MfE (Gow, Acting CEO and subsequently deputy head), DoC (Johnston, second tier general manager), Minfish (Crothers, Deputy Secretary), and MED (Perkins, third tier manager), accompanied on the committee by slightly more junior Treasury, Te Puni Kokiri and DPMC officials.426 _{In Gow’s view, the} more solid cross departmental underpinning combined with the leadership and technical and analytical abilities of the people involved allowed the policy work to progress more effectively. The new interdepartmental team (although still calling itself an oceans secretariat) embarked on what they called a stock take with internal papers, a suite of consultant reports, and a second round of consultations (this time just with key stakeholder groups) and submissions in March 2003. All this was aimed at reporting to Cabinet with a draft oceans policy by July 2003. 427 _{It was during this period} that a working draft of an oceans policy was crafted ready to submit to Cabinet. It included plans for a comprehensive new framework to integrate and unify the governance of all activity in the EEZ. 428 This effort had not been achieved without internal debate between officials, largely between the environmentally-oriented arguments put forward by DoC and MfE representatives, and the rights- based economic arguments from MED, Treasury, and Minfish representatives. In order to preserve a degree of unity and cross-departmental support, the new proposed regime endeavoured to

accommodate existing institutions.429 _{But what was different and significant environmentally was} that these would be subject to an overarching set of principles based on environmentally sustainable management. By June 2003, officials had agreed on a comprehensive new oceans regime. This was to involve an Oceans Act, an Oceans Minister, a national oceans plan, and an oceans agency - all

relatively similar to the institutions Australia had put in place five years earlier, but akin to the way

424 _{Lindsay Gow pers com, “As I recall Pete rang me about the time Barry was appointed (July 2002) and said he}

wanted me to lead an interdepartmental exercise which while it could be hosted through MfE, was not to be MfE dominated.”

425 _{Memo Hodgson to MfE, May 2002, MfE file PD OC 02-02-01. MfE was instructed it must seek to co-ordinate}

interdepartmental input, rather than impose its own views.

426 _{Pamphlet published as MfE, "An Oceans Policy for New Zealand," (Wellington: Ministry for the Environment,}

2003). Details of the membership of the Oceans Policy Steering Group, Oceans Policy Secretariat in 2003 and the proposed 2003oceans policy structure were posted on www.oceans.govt.nz. This website has been decommissioned but was retrieved for the author by MfE. The same documents are held on MfE file PD OC 02- 02-01.

427 _{Foster, "New Zealand's Oceans Policy." P.476.}

428 _{Lindsay Gow pers com; Vince, "Policy Transfer in Oceans Governance: Australia, Canada and New}

Zealand."P.415; MfE, "An Oceans Policy for New Zealand."

5: Oceans policy

the RMA was designed. The primary objectives of the regime were to sustain the health of ocean ecosystems, and meet Treaty of Waitangi and international obligations. Its secondary objectives were to provide for public use, access and enjoyment, provide for public return, and provide for enhanced environmental enjoyment. Decision-making principles were to be transparent and

participatory, managing within constraints of uncertainty, respecting existing rights, interests, values and future options, and avoiding, remedying, or mitigating environmental effects. The oceans plan would contain baseline ecological standards, and set national priorities, processes and tools for resolving competing uses. Maori were to be involved at all levels of decision-making. It was proposed to seek Cabinet approval after a joint Ministerial consideration in July 2003 and pursue a work plan to implement the regime by 30 June 2004. 430

Literature on the 2003 period seems to assume that it was just a stage in the policy development process.431 _{However, it is argued here that the policy was close to approval. Officials, coordinated by} MfE with significant DoC and Minfish input, had achieved agreement on what the framework should be. They had the support of the key minister and, although speculative, it is entirely possible

Hodgson might have carried it through to Cabinet approval. Thus, it seemed that New Zealand was about to create a new framework for managing its surrounding oceans and continental shelf. It was one based on integrated environmental principles and one that would be comprehensive, in that it applied to all marine activities.