White Sharks Rakiura

We have recently been informed about very concerning behaviours of companies filming great white sharks around Rakiura, with four production companies filming for the Discovery Channel this year.

We understand that filming of white sharks in New Zealand waters (without any other activity) is not governed by the Wildlife Act 1953. In the case we have been alerted to, the filming was carried out at the same time as sampling of live animals for which a Wildlife permit was issued.

The scientist who obtained the permit was so concerned by the activities and behaviours of the film crew that she made a formal statement under Section 82 Criminal Procedure Act 2011 “regarding the filming of great white shark by Hazmat Productions at Edwards Island during March and April 2024”.

In this statement she outlined a number of activities including:

• the use of decoys made of foam (polyethylene) as well as carbon fibre
• incidents when sharks were choking on chunks bitten/broken off from the decoys
• use of aquadrones (0.5m x 0.5m in size) to drop baits to which magnets and monofilament line were attached – and these were seen to be eaten by some of the sharks, with monofilament line left hanging from a shark’s mouth
• contraventions to the cage diving code of practice (in the way in which baits were deployed to bring fish into the area).

The activities listed above clearly contravene the Wildlife Act. It is an offence to “pursue, disturb or molest” any wildlife. While that phrase does not include merely “luring” a protected animal with bait, it does include intentionally troubling, distressing or injuring a protected animal where it is physically or mentally agitated to a level creating a real risk of significant harm (Shark Experience Ltd v PauaMAC5 Inc [2019] NZSC 111 at [74]). The sharks’ experiences as described in the scientist’s statement fall within the Court’s definition of “molest”.

Additionally, there is potential for the polyethylene fragments and broken pieces of decoys to be ingested by titi and other seabirds in the areas around the Titi Islands. Edwards Island (Motunui) is one of the 18 Rakiura Titi Islands, returned within the Ngāi Tahu Settlement Act, and administered by the Rakiura Titi Islands Administering Body. This appears to be a breach of s15B of the Resource Management Act 1991.

We note that a New Zealander, Dr Riley Elliott, was part of the activities that were undertaken. Despite scientific advice to the Department that he should not be issued a permit, as well as being declined a permit to tag tiger sharks at Norfolk Island, due to a history of undertaking unsanctioned ‘research’ at Stewart Island (i.e. filming white sharks biting bite meters in 2019) and his use of seal and turtle decoys at Stewart Island this year, he was still given a permit to tag sharks at Stewart Island. Dr Elliott has been prosecuted by the department in 2018 for breaches of the Marine Mammal Protection Act – for taking a sperm whale carcass without approval.

He was granted a discharge without conviction and ordered to pay $2,000.00 to a conservation trust at Whitianga and $500.00 costs to DOC. Although he eventually pled guilty to the charge, legal advice to the DOC decision makers in both applications was that they could not let this influence their decision to grant him a permit.

We are very concerned about these activities, and would like to know:

• Has the Department initiated enforcement action under the Wildlife Act, or does it intend to do so?
• Does the Department intend to take any action (either itself or in conjunction with Southland Regional Council) in relation to the discharge of waste to the coastal marine area?
• Is there any way to prevent a repeat of what has transpired over last summer?