On the 25th of February, Auckland Council listened as Waiheke Board Member Cath Handley presented a request regarding the Rahui by Ngati Paoa. Extending to one nautical mile off the coast of Waiheke Island for two years. Ngati Paoa have the statutory right to make this decision, but it has to be enforceable by law, and approved by the Ministry of Fisheries. The Rahui is for crayfish, paua, mussels and scallops; to allow these species to recover as many areas along the Hauraki Gulf have been overfished. A dive company that is backing this request has mentioned even juvenile paua has been harvested before its time, which will form into a huge deficit if this Rahui is not approved. In 2015, a Colmar Brunton survey of residents on Waiheke Island showed that 67% were in favour of marine reserves around the Island. This is being considered by central government however it seems that the Ministry of Fisheries have other priorities right now, however Auckland Council can and should do everything it can to restore the Hauraki Gulf.

It is great to see then that the governing body has voted to support the two year rahui (no-take) on scallops, mussells, crayfish and abalone on Waiheke for two years. The motion was led by Pippa Coom, seconded by the mayor Phil Goff and supported unanimously. Interestingly there was a petition signed by over 1000 people who were against the rahui. It seemed that there were three issues.

1. that the decision was not based on science. This is not true, the Hauraki Gulf Forum state of the environment report was quite clear that crayfish were functionally extinct and that shellfish numbers were low. Rahui (prohibiting collecting seafood) were proposed in the report. This report was written by a number of scientists of good repute with input from iwi and community groups that put a lot of time and energy into restoring the Hauraki Gulf. A rahui does not address all the issues but will help.

2. that a rahui is against our natural rights. Culturally in the West it is quite common to have seasons to shoot or fish, this is to ensure stock levels. They have been going on for centuries. It is not odd.

3. A concern that this decision has been led by iwi rather than anyone else and therefore the decision is not democratic. It might be empowering to consider that anyone can lead a good idea. In this case Ngati Paoa led a good idea, backed by science. They did talk to their people, they did talk to the community, they did ask for and receive the support from the democratically elected local board and the governing body.

If we reject a good idea because someone else thought of it then we are shooting ourselves in the foot. If you have a good idea then please lead it. We need all these good projects and we need more good leaders ready to do the work, make the connections and get things done. So let us not fight against those making good ideas happen but applaud them.