HYDROGRAPHIC OFFICE CHARTS NEW COURSE      by Dee Pigneguy

New Zealand's Royal New Zealand Navy Hydrographic Office is at risk of disintegrating.

Simply put, hydrography is the physical description of the earth's oceans, seas, lakes and rivers and their land margins, with particular emphasis on the safety of navigation. Nautical cartographers compile and assemble this information, and publish nautical charts for the mariner. One of the first New Zealand hydrographers was Captain Cook, whose charts of Fiordland were in use until recent times. In fact, the New Zealand Hydrographic Office has a direct link between Cook and today's marine safety infrastructure. New Zealand's Hydrographic Office was established in 1949 as a branch of the Royal New Zealand Navy, when it inherited the Royal Navy's charts from the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office. The government of the day told the navy to get on with surveying the coast. Unfortunately its authority was not enshrined by statute.

The Hydrographic Office had responsibility for charting New Zealand waters, which it did by employing and training nautical cartographers who have a unique set of skills. (They are not to be confused with cartographers, who are map-making draughtsmen). The skilled nautical cartographers and trained chart correctors became long-term employees, accumulating a depth of knowledge and understanding of their jobs.

Surveying was done by naval officers, the charts were produced by skilled nautical cartographers, and any corrections were made by skilled chart correctors.

One of the greatest strengths of the office was its seamless operation, which had enabled cross-pollination to build up not only a wealth of hydrographic information, but also efficient chart warehousing and distribution systems with a strong emphasis on quality. This accumulated knowledge (often presented at international forums), and the high quality of the charts, along with efficient distribution, has ensured maritime safety.

The Hydrographic Office was the repository of hydrographic information readily available to the public. People could walk in off the street to request information, even from the archives, and this would be freely given.

In the belief that it is better to keep information cheap and widely available rather than expensive and exclusive, charts sold for as little as $20 - a cost that covered marginal production and maintenance - even though the full cost has been estimated to be $300. The navy was not in the business of speculating, their focus was on quality, safety and service to mariners.

Charts are interesting documents, as they possess their own unique 'history'. Every chart currently produced carries the name of the hydrographer who has checked the whole process and thus guarantees the final product. He is the one who is accountable. Charts can be linked back to previous hydrography in their particular area of reference.

Charts are kept up to date by the weekly issue of Notices to Mariners, and ultimately by the issuing of new editions that incorporate new hydrographic information. Chart information is organised in an easily accessible fashion so that additions to and deletions from charts can be made whenever needed. And of course all charts stored by the navy were systematically upgraded, so that when sold they were properly updated and corrected.

Hydrography and the function of the office raise issues of national identity, safety and security of mariners, access to information, and public ownership of a resource that has been built up since 1950 with the help not only of chart sales, but also public funding.

New Zealand's seas provide it with food, leisure, transport and defence. No one should go to sea without a chart. Every day mariner's lives at sea depend upon the accuracy of charts. No New Zealand commercial vessel would receive a Safe Ship Management certificate without the prescribed, properly corrected charts for their area of operation.

Reforms a fait accompli

Yet at this very moment, under the guise of public sector reforms, radical and extraordinary changes to the provision of hydrography in New Zealand are a fait accompli.

How did this happen without any input from the very people whose lives depend on the charts in which we trust?

Two government-commissioned documents turned the tide that swamped the Hydrographic Service. The first was the 1993 report by the Marine Research Vessels Needs Review committee entitled Our Oceans: A Wealth of Opportunities Research Vessel Needs for the 21st Century (The Porritt Report).

This report was seen to be the result of feelings within government departments that the navy was not doing enough to make its ships available to other departments, a view contested by the navy.

The second document , the Heath Report, named after the author, Dr Ron Heath, the Vice Chancellor of Otago University, had two major recommendations which led to the present state of privatisation of the Hydrographic Office: 'that ... collection of hydrographic information be made contestable,' and 'that ... chart production should go to competitive tender.'

On July 1, 1996, a swipe of Cabinet's magic wand created Land Information New Zealand. LINZ emerged from the restructuring of the Department of Survey and Land Information.

This regulation transferred hydrographic advice and management to LINZ, plus the navy's annual budget of approximately $15 million for survey and chart production.

The total of LINZ's hydrographic expertise is one retired naval officer, and their head of department, the chief hydrographer/topographer, is a photogrammetrist (they produce maps with the help of aerial photographs and remote sensing satellites.)

As controller of the purse strings, LINZ purchases hydrographic information. The Royal New Zealand Navy, the experts, can tender, but have to compete with commercial agencies such as National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research or any other consortium that may arise. From being a service to mariners, hydrography is now a market enterprise to turn 'data into dollars'.

Where does this leave the New Zealand mariner?

Under the present changes, the Hydrographic Office could disintegrate. Given the complicated lines of communication resulting from numerous contracted bureaucratic bodies, can LINZ guarantee the necessary maritime standards?

This first year the navy has been awarded most of the contracts (except for chart maintenance warehousing and distribution). But there is no guarantee of long-term future contracts. In this climate of uncertainty, what is going to happen to this small group of dedicated skilled professional hydrographers who produced reliable charts.?

The only organisation that currently trains to International Hydrographic Organisation standards is the navy. All officers attend an accredited category B course in Australia and after eight to 10 years a category A course in England. Will our hydrographers of the future simply be survey degree students (with little marine experience) who have completed a short hydrographic module?

These changes come at a time when technology involved in chart production is undergoing major changes. If LINZ has a short-term, one year focus, who is going to invest in research, training and the introduction of new technology?

In the atmosphere of commercial confidentiality that must result from privatisation, will mariners' access to affordable hydrographic information disappear?

Chart maintenance, warehousing and distribution have now gone to Hydrolink, and charts now reside in Wellington. How can that be a cost efficient decision when 80 percent of charts are delivered north of Taupo?

Serious concerns related to continuity of supply of properly corrected nautical charts have been expressed already by provedores and agents. What systems have LINZ and Hydrolink put in place so that vital chart supplies can be guaranteed? In New Zealand where increasingly cheapest means shoddy, will LINZ be driven by the bottom line of profits for shareholders rather than service to mariners? How will 80 percent of chart users, including archives, access cost effective hydrographic information?

Allowing LINZ to restructure hydrography into a market model undermined the navy's ability to recruit and train hydrographers. Which commercial operation with an eye to cutting costs and remaining competitive will provide this training?

They Hydrographic Office is part of the maritime infrastructure, necessary for safety at sea. Were any of you asked for your opinions, told of the changes the government was considering, or asked to write a submission concerning either the recommendations or the consequences of downstream effects of losing such necessary infrastructure?

National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research formed an alliance with the Canadian Hydrographic Service and brought in project managers from Canada to complete the Kaikoura survey. How does this help to keep our high skilled hydrographers employed?

Public Service Association figures indicate that $500,000 a year has been spent trying to effect efficiencies and savings in the Hydrographic Office. How can this be cost effective in an organisation that costs only $2 million a year to run and returned $600,000 in chart sales?

In fact Canadian studies have shown that every dollar sensibly spent on hydrography is returned 10-fold in invisibles such as cheaper freight rates and insurance.

PROFESSIONAL RIP-OFFS! OR IS IT PLAIN THEFT?          By Keith Ingram

As we move closer to the year 2000 an ever increasing focus will be directed upon the New Zealand maritime transport industry and those associated with it. The America's Cup will put New Zealand into the lounges of a billion viewers world wide and hanging on the coat tales of the America's Cup, the year of the millennium, will be the maritime transport industry. We will be under the microscope, that is if there is any berthage left that has not been leased to an international vessel.

Already in the news much focus has been given to potential rip-offs or more professional known as scalping or gouging and already it is happening. I can only draw a parallel with the last Olympics at Atlanta. One is hard pushed to find any once who can recall who won the race, but they are very quick to tell you about the transport problems, the delays, the rip-offs. Now as we approach 1999, we as an industry must be conscious of the would be, maybe unscrupulous person who may try to rip the system off for a quick buck. I am talking about those who have no long term commitment to the industry, those that are in it only for what they can gain today.

During this past month much has happened to enrage local operators as the last of the commercial boat tenants within the western viaduct hang on by the grace of limited time. Over the last three years the Auckland charter boat fleet has lost 1500m of commercial berthage, while the fishing industry lost a further 900m from Auckland's water-front. Long term leases appear not to be worth the paper they were written on, which says little for the integrity or credibility of those who manage the water-front. The port company either sold or leased the management rights to holding or management middlemen, non the least America's Cup Village Limited. ARC Trust has its finger in the pie as do the odd entrepreneur to such an extent there is now no single person in charge or who can be held accountable. As Professional Skipper went to press the last of the viaducts tenants were being given notices to leave. We understand Z Pier tenants, the only commercial charter boat base for the smaller vessels have been informed that they will now be on a month by month lease from the Ports of Auckland and to expect an increase in berthage rates. Now its not as though Auckland's operators have enjoyed cheap berthage over the years, they currently pay the highest rates in New Zealand and then some.

And don't let any one tell you its sour grapes either, when they say we must look at the big picture and what the Cup can do for New Zealand. No one in Auckland's charter boat fleet minded being moved out. They have accepted the big picture and suffered much from disruption to their businesses, they recognise the viaduct will be the hub of activity and for many them it may not be the best place to be. But they do need berthage and to just tell them to move out with no offered alternative is criminal. You just try and find someone in charge and nobody wants to know. It will at the end of the day be the public who misses out as their rights to have access to their Hauraki Gulf and the Cup race area is eroded.

Speaking of rights, today currently we are faced with greater concerns which maybe ripping off the public or operators and I focus on the activities of booking agents. Charter boat agents in New Zealand are a relatively new icon. Sure Whangarei Deep Sea Anglers Club has always been an agent for its local charter boat fleet, Game Fish Charters in the Bay of Islands and throughout our ports there are like Co-operatives who along with some agents who have grown out of a charter boat business. My comments in no way question the integrity of these operators, the ones I do question are those that arrive, set up shop with little or unknown credible history and little financial backing. Already we are seeing an increase in the number of agents touting for business and as we approach cup time, this will undoubtedly increase.

So it is opportune to take a minute to take a look at how we as an operator or client can protect ourselves from the potential rip-off or being left holding the dirty nappy once the baby has scarpered. The principle problem is under-capitalisation. An example of which is the recent demise of Island Rover Yacht Charters. April 1998 saw the principle directors of this company close doors, and post letters of notification to all boat owners at Auckland's international airport terminal.

Without going into the in-depth details of how a fast growing professionally run company, described as being well positioned to be the leading charter company in the region, to a casualty, one can only guess. Unquestionably the decline started with the change of partnership/ownership and change of directors. The company was owned by three principle shareholders, two of whom sold their interests in the company and while the purchasers look good on paper it would appear they lacked the capital substance to back up the investment. We can all think of similar examples, here lies the crux of the problem. Here we had a respected company built over five years by hard working people closely associated with the industry. Purchased by what can only be termed marketing entrepreneurs, who unfortunately we cannot talk to because they have left the country.

But the real casualties are the boat owners who had their vessels under management contracts. They are left with no bonds, no deposits for future charters and in many cases no payment for recent charters. Conversely future charterers may now be left in the invidious position of having paid deposits with no guarantee's. We understand some deposits may have been returned, but when you are dealing with a charter boat agents with international marketing and standing it is hard to gauge the long term impacts on the charter boat fleet and maritime transport industry. The question is. How do we safe guard our operators, boat owners and clients from a similar event in the future?

On the flip side of the coin let's now focus on the boat building industry because in the last three years the impact of boat builders going out of business and starting up again under a new name has had a dramatic effect on operators and boat owners. Once again the principle cause may be attributed to under-capitalisation. The boat builder could very well be an excellent trades-person. Unfortunately, they don't teach businesses management in a boat building apprenticeship. In researching this article I spoke to prominent boat builders many of whom are members of the BIA about the collapse of boat building companies like Aztec Marine, The Wooden Boat Shop, Sim's Engineering, Willis Glen Marine, Blue Fin Boats, Hydrotech Power Cats to name a few as some of these companies have left a trial of devastation behind. What do you expect, said one prominent boat builder with a degree of arrogance, you only get what you pay for. These guys try to do it on the cheap. Of course, they will go bust. Got no sympathy for charter boat skippers who are always looking for something for nothing. Besides we are better off without fleas like those fellows up north, what did you call them, he said. At this stage I was sorry I had bothered to ask the question and walked away.

But the facts remain, the New Zealand boat building industry in the mid range is no longer competitive by world standards. By the mid range I am talking about 10 to 15 metres, something the local industry will need to watch closely as other boat building industries in the South Pacific develop and start taking a larger share of the market.

How does one deal with somebody who shuts shop on Friday only to open the doors under another name somewhere else on Monday? Unfortunately this is not just a trait restricted to the maritime industry, all we can do as owners, is to put in place principles which will ensure that you own everything you pay for when entering a contract to have a new vessel built.

This can be done a number of ways. The most conservative is to agree on the price and any extras. Sign a contract where the deposit is paid into a holding account which cannot be released until after the vessel has commenced construction and reached stage one. The remainder of the construction price to be lodged in a separate account with your own bankers where you may continue to earn interest. The contract as agreed has an interest baring clause where as the boat building company is paid interest on his borrowing's to fund the rest of the construction of the vessel. This might cost slightly more but at least both parties have some guarantee's. On delivery, passing survey and sea trials the balance of payment is made with the exception of a maintenance retention amount no greater than the initial deposit for delivery servicing guarantee period.

This option most probably will only be suitable for the larger companies who have a good capital base as most New Zealand boat building companies expect a healthy deposit so they can start and progress payments to keep them ahead all the way through the construction. If this is the case the deposit and progress payments should be structured so they are always being paid for documented identifiable and tangible assets. Collecting the money before the next stage of construction is a No No as this places the owner in a difficult position of collecting his goods once the receiver moves in, if the company goes bust. Once again a retention amount of around 10% should be retained for the guarantee period.

We must remember that the charter boat industry, because it caters principally for the New Zealand market cannot command the prices we see in many overseas ports. It is a numbers and economics game. Half a million dollars plus vessels are not sustainable in most small charter boat businesses which is why we see so many older well maintained vessels working around our coast. Some of them older than the grey bearded skippers operating them. When I think of the statement, "you only get what you paid for" I must come to the defence of the valiant efforts made by some boat builders to move charter boat operators from an aging fleet into a more modern high speed vessel at an affordable price. Many of these new boats while lacking the high quality finish and trim and extra luxuries were still well presented functional and sea kindly. I don't believe there is any one in the industry who would dispute a fair price for a fair job and it doesn't matter whether the boat building company is a small or large. If it allows itself to get into a position where it is under capitalised then it doesn't matter who it is, they run the risk of becoming another casualty and leaving a trail of devastation behind. Then again setting prices high with the supply and demand mentality only leads to the boom bust scenario or sending potential clients offshore.

THE MAGNA CARTA - NEW ZEALAND'S OTHER TREATY      by Clive Atkinson

While a nation-wide battle rages over customary rights, it appears that the various parties have overlooked an even older treaty, the Magna Carta. Common Law is still valid in New Zealand, and dates back to the Magna Carta and beyond to the Normans of 1066.

The ancient law of customary rights enacted by the New Zealand Parliament as recently as 1988 applies to all citizens. Chapter 29 of the Magna Carta is incorporated into an Act of Parliament through the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988, First Schedule. It cannot be disregarded or ignored. The law was specific that customary rights remained intact unless a parliamentary act or law expressly extinguished them.

The courts are now upholding Maori customary rights, but it is not so generally known that customary rights apply to all New Zealanders through the Magna Carta. The legal pre-requisites to make a custom good are that it affects not only the inhabitants of that particular area or country, it must also have been a custom for as long as memory permits, and be continuous, peaceable and reasonable (as defined in the New Zealand Law Dictionary, Butterworths 1985).

The Magna Carta is a Royal Charter handed down from the sovereign to the people, over-riding statute law. A Royal Charter cannot be changed. Visit the Queen's Internet site and find King John and the Magna Carta, which reads: 'We have also granted to all the freemen of our realm for ourselves and our heirs forever, all the liberties, written below, to have and to hold, them and their hers from us and our heirs.'

It would appear that so long as New Zealand is a monarchy, the Magna Carta is a higher law than parliament or the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi!

The Treaty of Waitangi in itself relates in its entirety to the charter of 1297, in the third part, for example:

'For this agreed arrangement therefore concerning the government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand, and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England.

Whereas the charter states:

'We have granted to all the freemen of our realm for ourselves and our heirs forever, all the liberties and customs written in the charter and to hold them forever.' Also, 'that no man of what estate or condition shall be put out of land or tenement, nor taken nor imprisoned, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without being brought in answer by due process of law.'

This principle is upheld by the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 7: All are equal before the law, and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.

All are entitled to equal protection against discrimination in violation of this declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Even the second part of the treaty relates directly to the charter: 'The Queen of England agrees to protect the Chiefs, the Subtribes and all people of New Zealand in the unqualified protection of their lands, towns and their national treasures.'

There can be no other way than that the charter of 1297 was the basis of the Treaty of Waitangi, and as such gives all New Zealanders the same rights, no matter what their race, colour or creed.

We have seen where our New Zealand law comes from, and at the time of the Treaty of Waitangi, imperial law was the governing law of New Zealand. So it is obvious that the treaty of 1840 incorporates fully the charter of 1297, and that customary rights appeal to all New Zealanders.

Before the Fisheries Claim Settlement Act 1992, all New Zealanders shared the fishing industry, including commercial fishing. When the government changed the rules, they failed to recognise the existing customary rights of all New Zealanders, and in so doing were in breach of the Magna Carta and its offspring, the Treaty of Waitangi.

To single out one race over another for customary rights is again contrary to both the charter and the treaty. We are told that there will be over 1 million registered Maori in New Zealand by the year 2051. Half of them will be over 50 percent European descent, the remainder will be at least 25 percent European descent. How can anybody who is more European than Maori claim customary rights over other New Zealanders?

Remember that the decisions of government, ministers and local government are not the law of the land. The law of the land is a statute, and therefore interpretation or policies become very important when deciding if your liberties, freehold or free customs, which are protected in chapter 29 of the Magna Carta, are being removed.

In relation to our fishing regulations and customary rights, it appears that our government and public servants, bit by bit, are pushing the limits of the law in an unacceptable erosion of our fundamental liberties, as enshrined in the Magna Carta.

The liberties should not be diminished in the name of economics, competition or race relations. Similarly they should not be diminished to make life easier for our executive government and its public service. The Fisheries Claim Settlement Act could be said to be illegal in that it takes away customary rights from the majority of New Zealanders, and makes no provision for them directly, contrary to our natural rights under the Magna Carta.