Goodhew Jo: Resource Management (Restricted Coastal  Activities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Resource Management (Restricted Coastal  Activities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6754] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I rise to support my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith in this Resource Management (Restricted Coastal Activities) Amendment Bill. This bill is about redeeming the Resource Management Act consent process before it is irrevocably damaged. It amends provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 in relation to coastal activities and seeks to make the Environment Court the last stop for an inquiry for restricted coastal activity. 
The performance—the debacle—that played out over the Whangamata marina has threatened the integrity of the process of the Resource Management Act. The outcry from New Zealanders was warranted. The disgust of New Zealanders was warranted. Fourteen years is a long time; not even New Zealand courts sentence someone to hard labour for as long as that. But the supporters of the Whangamata marina project spent that amount of time challenging this. It was too long and then for nought. This is the sorry tale of how it went: first the Thames-Coromandel District Council approved it; second Environment Waikato approved it; and third the Department of Conservation signed an agreement and approved it. Then followed an appeal to the Environment Court and 28 days of scrutiny. Then the decision came. That decision was to proceed. And then the Minister used his veto. One might think that this was the Minister’s first opportunity to make his views known but that would be completely wrong. 
Let me describe what the Minister can do prior to using his current power of veto. He has lots of chances. The Minister of Conservation writes and approves the national Coastal Policy Statement. Then he approves every regional coastal policy statement. Then he appoints a member to the hearings committee that hears the consents. He has the right to submit; he has the right to appeal. The Minister has plenty of opportunities to make his views known. There were five opportunities for his impact. Why does the Minister need more? In 1991 National put the power of ministerial veto into law but there was a difference back then. There were no national Coastal Policy Statement or regional coastal policy statements back then. Therefore it was reasonable to supply a safeguard in the form of a ministerial veto. 
I remind the House of the Whangamata marina and the injustice served up there by the Minister. He used his power of veto in an unscrupulous way. The judge in the High Court found that the Minister broke the law—not once not twice but three times—and there was no small cost associated with that. One thousand members of the Whangamata Marina Society would say that the cost was huge in terms of 14 years of their lives and $1.5 million for a consent that was undone unlawfully. The beauty of this bill is that it would not only restore integrity and confidence in the process but also reduce the delay and the costs. 
We are talking about the Resource Management Act tonight—about that lengthy process that holds up so much progress in New Zealand; that lengthy process that could be made better with this bill. We are not talking about the hasty plans that this Labour Government has—or should I say that Trevor Mallard the Minister for the Rugby World Cup has all for his maimai or his “Clark park”—to circumvent the Resource Management Act through hasty legislation. We are not talking about that; we are simply talking about removing something that is now quite unnecessary: the ministerial veto. That ministerial veto has been abused because we know that the people of Whangamata marina have spent 14 years going through a process that should have seen some resolution. Instead they are seeing all their work their $1.5 million dollars worth of effort undone. These people must now surely wonder what on earth they can do to make things move forward in their part of New Zealand.