Can a regional council prohibit fishing in a specific area?

Can a regional council prohibit fishing in a specific area?
Thursday 12 December, 2019
In Attorney-General v Trustees of the Motiti Rohe Moana Trust [2019] NZCA 532,the Court of Appeal considered whether the Bay of Plenty Regional Council could ban fishing in areas of outstanding natural character in order to maintain indigenous biodiversity of fish species when the Fisheries Act 1996 (“FA”) separately regulates the taking of the particular fish species.
Section 30(1)(ga) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”) states that regional councils have the function of establishing, implementing and reviewing objectives, policies, and methods for maintaining indigenous biological diversity in their regions. Section 30(2) expressly prevents the regional council from controlling the taking, allocation or enhancement of fisheries resources for the purpose of managing fishing or fisheries resources controlled under the FA.
Purpose of s 30(1)(ga)
The Court of Appeal held that the RMA and the FA pursued different objectives. Section 30(1)(ga) of the RMA is concerned with protecting indigenous biodiversity, whereas the FA is concerned with “sustainable utilisation of fisheries resources” and only to the extent appropriate to secure future stocks. The RMA objective of protecting indigenous biodiversity is broader in scope: it protects all forms of indigenous organisms and their ecosystems and it protects indigenous biodiversity for its intrinsic value. The Court accepted that the two statutes were intended to complement each other; decisions under one statute may be informed by decisions under the other.
The Court stated that s 30(1)(ga) was enacted to fulfil New Zealand’s obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity to conserve biological diversity and regulate or manage biological resources for the conservation of biological diversity. The Court found that the legislative history of the statutes confirmed that responsibility for indigenous biodiversity was deliberately assigned to regional councils under the RMA, not established under the Fisheries Act. The Court held that the function of maintaining biodiversity was not subordinated to other regional council functions. It is broader than controlling the use of land, though it can include such controls.
Purpose of s 30(2)
The Court held that the prohibition in section 30(2) RMA was aimed at the FA concepts of managing fishery resources. The purpose was to prevent regional councils usurping the Minister’s sole right to allocate access to fishing resources. In assessing whether a control breaches s 30(2), the Court set out five factors to consider:
- Necessity: whether the objective of the control is already being met through FA measures;
- The type of control and whether it amounts to fisheries management, such as catch limits;
- Scope: controls aimed at indigenous biodiversity is likely not to discriminate among forms or species;
- Scale: the larger the scale of the control the more likely it is to amount to fisheries management;
- Location: the more specific the location and the more significant its biodiversity values, the less likely it is that a control will contravene s 30(2).
The Court concluded that a regional council might control fisheries resources in the exercise of its section 30 RMA functions, provided the regional council did not act to manage the resource for FA purposes.
Whilst not discussed in this article, the court also looked into:
- Whether a regional council can exercise all of its functions under the RMA concerning the protection of Māori values and interests in the coastal marine area, provided that they are not inconsistent with the special provision made for Māori interests under the Fisheries Act.
- To what extent, if any, does s 30(2) of the RMA prevent a regional council from performing its function to maintain indigenous biodiversity under s 30(1)(ga)?
- Did the High Court err by setting aside the declaration made by the Environment Court?
This decision is a further example of where the courts have been required to determine what role, if any, the RMA has to play in regulating activities that are also controlled by over specialist legislation. In most cases, the courts have held that the RMA complements and works alongside other specialist legislation.
For assistance with questions relating to this article, please contact Bridget Parham
Talk to one of our experts
Related Articles

Councils challenge to transfer of water services rejected in High Court
Thursday 30 March, 2023

When the rubber hits the road - All aboard Aotearoa's challenge
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Declarations that an Enactment Inconsistent with Bill of Rights
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Proposed mandatory consideration of specific Māori representation
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

New Regime for Protected Disclosures (Whistleblower legislation)
Wednesday 29 June, 2022

Operative plans and proposed plans: what to do when there is a significant policy shift?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Notices of requirement are relevant for resource consent applications
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Avoidance policies reign in the wake of King Salmon, but what do they require?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Court gives guidance on consultation and decision-making process
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Cultural evidence and the continued draw of the overall judgment
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Fluoridation debate lifted from shoulders of local government
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Will new housing density rules increase contributions for developers?
Thursday 28 October, 2021

Judicial review of Hamilton City Council's development contributions policy
Tuesday 5 October, 2021

Lease of Wanaka Airport set aside due to insufficient consultation
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

What if an abatement notice requires you to breach the Resource Management Act?
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

“No ‘wine-ing’ covenants” declined for a subdivision consent in Gibbston Valley
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

From car parking fine to judicial review of a council’s code of conduct
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

Councils remain liable for compliance of contractors with the RMA
Thursday 18 March, 2021

Randerson Report released: New Direction for Resource Management
Wednesday 5 August, 2020

Could companies be liable to the public for the harm caused by their emissions?
Tuesday 10 March, 2020

Avoiding double penalties when sentencing a company and director
Thursday 23 April, 2020

Can an easement be granted over an esplanade reserve for a commercial activity?
Thursday 12 December, 2019

Draft National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2019 for consultation
Thursday 3 October, 2019

Local authority requiring monetary contributions on designations
Thursday 20 June, 2019

Bella Vista: MBIE Report highlights failure to perform statutory functions
Tuesday 9 April, 2019

Recent decision on "affected persons" highlights the importance of context
Wednesday 28 November, 2018

High Court finds Council liable in negligence for damage from fallen tree
Thursday 27 September, 2018

Court upholds sensible approach to local authority works on private property
Tuesday 24 July, 2018

Must Councils accept an assertion that a person is ‘suitably qualified'?
Friday 9 March, 2018
