Dear Auckland Council,

Hauraki Gulf Forum Governance Review
The proposals for this Review go to Council as one of the constituent local body members of the Hauraki Gulf Forum. It is proposed that they “lie on the table’ to await the incoming post-election Council.

1. What is really concerning is the undemocratic nature of the proposals that appear to have been heavily influenced by the manu whenua members that currently represent iwi on the Forum.

2. We question whether non manu whenus members, and government / local government appointees have been intimidated into accepting these recommendations?

This proposal appears to go against the “guiding principles that were adopted to “inform the review”:
1. Respecting, and accommodating, existing and future Treaty settlements
2. Requiring the current approach to the governance of the Forum needing to reflect contemporary best practice
3. The future governance model of the Forum should be based on ‘influence’ rather than ‘representation’
4. The Forum should employ the concept of Rangatira to Rangatira, and should be made up of influential leaders with the Crown playing a greater role
5. Governance of the Forum needs to be simplified and focussed on the purpose of the Forum
Why has this been allowed to happen?

And here are the Recommendations that resulted from the recent deliberations of the Forum:
(a) That particular attention is paid to Treaty settlements and the current Treaty settlement processes, and the Sea Change Tai Timu Tai Pari process, alongside this governance review process
(b) That the governance model for the Forum is changed to a co-governance approach, comprising equal numbers of mana whenua and other members
(c) That mana whenua appoint their members directly through a process designed and approved by mana whenua
(d) That the size of the Forum is reduced to 16 members
(e) That the Forum membership is made up as follows:
 8 members appointed by mana whenua
 5 members appointed by the Minister of Conservation (for example political, business, community or NGO leaders rather than Crown representatives)
 3 members appointed by local authorities (1 form each of the Auckland Council, Waikato Regional Council and the territorial authorities collectively) – these may or may not be elected members.
Note: current representation is as follows:
 1 representative appointed each by the Minister of Conservation, the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Maori Affairs.
 7 representatives appointed by the Auckland Council.
 1 representative appointed by each of the following - Hauraki, Matamata Piako, Thames Coromandel, Waikato District & Waikato Regional Councils.
 6 representatives of the tangata whenua of the Hauraki Gulf and its islands appointed by the Minister after consultation with the tangata whenua and Minister of Maori Affairs.
(f) That the term of appointments be 3 years with the ability to reappoint up to a maximum number of terms to be agreed, with a staggering of terms to ensure that there is some continuity of knowledge across terms
(g) That in addition to the other changes recommended in this report, the Forum undertakes a process to promote a clear understanding of and focus on the governance task of the Forum, including the relevant purpose, objective and function provisions of the Hauraki Gulf Marin Park Act 2000
(h) That any reform of the governance arrangements for the Forum should include provision for the Forum to have more statutory authority and a stronger and more direct role in terms of statutory decision making over the Hauraki Gulf
(i) That, as an interim step, the Forum creates a smaller ‘core group’ of 12 members to drive more focussed and strategic governance for the Forum,, and at the same time advances a case for legislative amendment to the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000
(j) That the Chief Executives of the local authorities and relevant ministries/departments work together to implement these recommendation immediately following the 2016 triennial local authority elections.

3. These recommendations are preposterous and we would like all relevant information on how this recommendation was forthcoming?
4. Who orchestrated this recommendation?

5. Is the influence of David Taipari and Paul Majurey in these proposals?

The Cultural Impact Assessments that the Panel wanted removed from the Unitary Plan, and that staff wanted reinstated, was confirmed as out of the Plan at the Auckland Council meeting following it having been sent straight through to the Governing Body from the Committee of the Full Council.

6. How did this get through the Committee to the Governing Body with the support of the unelected Maori Statutory Board that has a vote on the former but not on the later?

7. Did Chair of the Board David Taipari 'drop the ball' on this?

8. Deputy Mayor French has some very pointed questions to answer on how this got to this stage with him as our representative on the Forum. We request she answer to this?

9. We know that David Taipari and Paul Majurey are accomplished 'long-game' players, we request information on if they were involved and how they did this?

10. Why has the 200,000 Recreational fishing representation been locked out of the Hauraki Gulf Forum?

11. Why have Customary got the smallest part yet they have the biggest representation it’s is straight racism and bias.

12. Rate payers are paying for this and it’s none of the Councils business – why are they spending ratepayers money on this as it’s not an essential service that ratepayers should be paying for

Yours faithfully,

Graham Carter