Fisheries groups and the Government have been given permission to keep commercially sensitive information out of the public domain at a forthcoming court case focusing on an increasingly busy marine area in the South Island.

The Environment Court has granted an application by Fisheries Inshore New Zealand, the Paua Industry Council, NZ Rock Lobster Industry Council and the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries for confidentiality orders around some of their activities in areas of the Marlborough Sounds.

The parties sought the orders to stop information on the position of commercial fishing activity and catch data from reaching the public during a forthcoming appeal hearing.

Conservation group Friends of Nelson Haven and Tasman Bay have lodged an appeal against part of the Marlborough District Council’s Environment Plan.

The group declined to speak with NZME, but a summary of its notice of appeal lodged with the Environment Court shows the group is concerned about what it sees as flawed attempts at preserving Marlborough’s natural character and landscape and indigenous biodiversity.

Duffers Reef in the outer Marlborough Sounds is home to the rare and endemic New Zealand King Shag. The area is a focus of competing interests between fishing and conservation groups. Photo / Tracy Neal

It also felt that policy framework around the environment plan took a narrow approach to the protection of biodiversity in the coastal environment.

The group acknowledged the plan’s proposed establishment of a network of marine and coastal areas for threatened and internationally significant seabird populations, of which Marlborough in particular supported a “significant diversity”.

However, details outlined in the appeal document suggest the group doesn’t feel the plan goes far enough to protect the confined habitat of the nationally endangered New Zealand King Shag, which breeds and feeds only in the outer Sounds.

Data collected since the early 1990s identified a feeding area for this indigenous seabird, which now numbers about 840, of about 1300 square kilometres.

The evidence necessary to explore the overlap between this habitat and the activities of the fishing industry groups is to be presented at the forthcoming appeal hearing, but it contains information the industry wants to keep under wraps.

Evidence to be filed in these proceedings contains sensitive location information in the form of maps and tables related to the location of commercial fishing in the areas which are the subject of the appeal.

It includes a single “heat map” provided by the Ministry for Primary Industries, and the likely disclosure of commercial data collected by MPI for Fisheries Act enforcement and monitoring, which is data not typically available to the public, the Environment Court said in its decision to grant the order.

The parties submitted that a commercial operator’s fishing knowledge is a valuable commodity and is commercially sensitive.

Position data indicated the location of fishing grounds, therefore the disclosure of this information could “unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of the operator who supplied it by making that position known to competitors”.

They added that while the electronic catch and position data has been anonymised, it may not always be sufficient to ensure that a vessel, person, or company cannot be identified.

The Resource Management Act provides the court with the power to prohibit or restrict the communication of any information obtained by it in the course of the proceedings and to exclude the public from a hearing where that information is likely to be referred to.

Judge John Hassan was ultimately satisfied that the orders sought struck an appropriate balance between avoiding disclosure that might impact the supply of similar information in the future - or which may cause unreasonable commercial prejudice, and protecting the public interest in making that information available in these proceedings.

He prohibited the publication or communication of confidential information and ordered it to be redacted from briefs of evidence available to the public.

Judge Hassan also instructed that parts of the hearing could be held with the public excluded if requested and that any confidential information presented at the hearing could not be uploaded to any website.

The hearing transcript on the court’s file was not to be searched, inspected, or copied without the court’s permission.

Leave was reserved for any party to apply to amend the orders.

- Tracy Neal, Open Justice