Turei Metiria: Resource Management (Restricted Coastal  Activities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Turei Metiria: Resource Management (Restricted Coastal  Activities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6755] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party does not support the Resource Management (Restricted Coastal Activities) Amendment Bill. The bill is a response to the Minister of Conservation’s decision to decline an application for the development of a marina at Whangamata. The application was to use 4 hectares of the coastal marine zone to construct and operate the marina and to cover a salt marsh for development as a parking area. We along with thousands of hapu coastal communities and city dwellers are increasingly opposed to the fierce drive in this country to privatise our coastlines and marine areas. The Whangamata debate is a typical example of that drive to privatise and we are very pleased that the development has not proceeded. 
We were disappointed in the Environment Court’s decision to grant the proposal and we fully supported the Minister of Conservation’s decision to exercise his statutory role in favour of the environment. His decision meant that the area had been kept safe for everyone to use as a food basket and as a national treasure. We support the mana whenua of the area who have been consistently opposed to the development because it would destroy a highly valued pataka kai. It is very rare for hapu and iwi considerations to be taken seriously by Ministers and we are very pleased that this Minister did so. The consistent opposition by the mana whenua demonstrates in our view that iwi concerns about the protection of the environment from inappropriate development provide a solid basis for the protection of the environment for everyone. By recognising and respecting the kaitiakitanga of the mana whenua there strong local communities can be built from this common ground. 
In our view the decision of the High Court was very disappointing but it is worth noting that as a judicial review case the court did not find any evidence of bias predetermination or irrationality in the Minister’s decision. The judicial review was upheld on three procedural matters and it is fair to say that we are also very disappointed that those procedural mistakes were made in such an important matter. We do expect better of the Minister. 
What has been quite fascinating—and not in a good way—is the very intense backlash by those who want to privatise public space. That is what this application was really all about—turning usable accessible public space into privately owned space. I have heard proponents of the marina say that it will remain a public area because people will be able to walk along the marina fish off the walkways and look at all the lovely boats. If we applied a land analogy to that approach we would say that it is like turning a community park with a community garden and space for families sport and picnics into a large concrete car-park and then say that it is still a public space because people can have the enormous privilege of walking through the enormous concrete car-park and looking at all the Bentleys as they go by. 
Yet we face this kind of hysterical response from those who want to privatise these public spaces. I think Nick Smith has been leading some of that hysteria—the backlash against the protection of public access to the foreshore and seabed. In the foreshore and seabed debate National used the rights of access and the notion of the New Zealand way of life with picnics and swimming as reasons to keep hapu and iwi from having any tikanga interests in the coastal areas. National’s Nick Smith was especially vocal about those public rights. He said that the beach was the core to being a New Zealander. He said that it was our right to grab the picnic bag or the barbecue and go to the beach. Yet on the Whangamata issue he staunchly defends the private rights of some to acquire public property and to restrict public access. 
I know that Nick Smith will now argue that the bill is about the integrity of the court process but he simply would not have put this bill in the ballot if the Environment Court had declined the application and the Minister had overturned that decision. Of course he could have got rid of the ministerial discretion provision when he was Minister. The fact is that we can have a process for the growth and development of our economy that does not steal from the public and that does not destroy our environmental values. We must stop the private capture of public space.