Carter Chris: Urgent Debates — Child Youth and Family Services Department—Merger with  Ministry of Social Development Whangamata Marina—Minister’s Intervention 
Carter Chris: Urgent Debates — Child Youth and Family Services Department—Merger with  Ministry of Social Development Whangamata Marina—Minister’s Intervention 
[Volume:629;Page:1726] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 As the Minister of Conservation I am charged under the Resource Management Act with protecting the public interest in the spectacular coastline of New Zealand. As part of that responsibility which I take very seriously I am required to make the final decision on restricted coastal activities under the Resource Management Act including those activities that will occupy public space on the coast and involve large-scale dredging or the construction of structures. 
My office gets roughly 25 of these applications a year and I have declined just one—an application to build a marina in Whangamata Harbour. I turned this application down because having looked at the issues involved in the proposal the way the Environment Court approached them and the evidence I was not satisfied that allowing use of the public’s coastal marine area for that development would be appropriate in terms of the Resource Management Act. I am conscious that in making this decision I am going against a recommendation of the Environment Court but the law requires the Minister of Conservation to exercise an overall judgment on certain coastal development matters that is distinct from the court’s. I have fulfilled my statutory duty and made an overall judgment in this case. 
The reasons for my decision are twofold. First the marina requires a salt marsh to be turned into a car-park. The value of that salt marsh to the area is heavily contested. Three experts before the Environment Court said it was valuable and one—the expert put up by the applicants—said it was not. The Environment Court in its judgment highlighted the difficulty it had in coming to a decision about the salt marsh. In the end the court favoured the applicants; I did not. My judgment was that the salt marsh is valuable and important to the ecology of Whangamata Harbour. 
My second reason for declining the application was the impact the proposal would have on Maori and the shellfish beds in Whangamata Harbour. The marina would require extensive dredging. Initial construction would remove up to 167000 cubic metres of seabed. A further 6000 cubic metres per year would have to be removed on an ongoing basis. The marina would require the construction of a channel that would cross Whangamata Harbour and sever the shellfish beds. Once again conflicting evidence was presented to the Environment Court on those matters. The court chose to go one way and it was a direction I could not agree with. It is my judgment that there would be an inappropriate impact on the shellfish resource and on local iwi who use the area. The scale of that impact is evident by the fact that the iwi have been consistent in their opposition to the marina proposal from the start. What is more they have been unified by their opposition—a sign of how deeply they feel about Whangamata and its significance to New Zealand. We need to respect those views in this House and also acknowledge that a great many members of the public share them as well. 
Since announcing my decision I have seen hysterical claims that I have subverted proper process and committed a constitutional outrage in turning down this application. I utterly reject those claims. The proper process is laid down in law and the law requires me to be the final decision maker on restricted coastal activities. Each and every Environment Court judgment on restricted coastal activities that comes to me comes as a report and a recommendation only. 
Parliament’s intent in the Resource Management Act is quite explicit: the Minister of Conservation must make the final decision. The courts themselves have required that of the Minister. In  
Hastings District Council  
v  
Minister of Conservation 
 in 2002 the High Court stated: “If the Minister was not lawfully and properly able to depart from the recommendation of the Committee or Environment Court there would be no point in vesting in her the ultimate decision-making power as s 119 does. Although the Minister must take into account the recommendation of the Committee or the Court she is not bound by them. She is not merely a rubber stamp. She is able indeed she is required to exercise her own judgment.” I have done just that. That ruling was from the High Court of New Zealand in 2002. I have followed the proper process. I have upheld the law and I am quite prepared to consider further advice from the courts should this issue proceed to judicial review and return to me. It is not I who is subverting proper process or committing a constitutional outrage; it is those people like National MP Nick Smith who is now seeking to take the extraordinary step of retrospectively changing the law to allow this proposal to proceed. 
But just what is Nick Smith’s interest in this matter? His own involvement in it as the Minister of Conservation in the 1990s is very murky indeed. He has made a great deal of noise about the fact that the Department of Conservation did not take part in the Environment Court proceedings on the marina proposal. But what he has not told the people of New Zealand is that the department was opposed to the marina because of its environmental impacts and that it lodged an appeal against the Waikato Regional Council’s approval of it in 1997. It was only after pressure was put on the department by its Minister in 1999 that the department withdrew its appeal and settled with the Whangamata Marina Society. The Minister at the time was of course none other than Nick Smith. I challenge him to make it clear to this House today why he pressured the department to withdraw from the process and exactly how he was fulfilling his responsibility to the public on whose property this marina is to be built. 
Members of this House need to remember that the coast is not privately owned. It is a resource that belongs to each and every citizen of this country not to just a few. It is a resource that New Zealanders value and it forms a part of our national identity. We are an island nation and countless New Zealand families either live or holiday on the coast. Most of us have a favourite beach or piece of headland. Most of us care deeply about what happens there whether or not the National Party accepts that. 
I suspect that this is the reason why the previous National Government under Jim Bolger passed the Resource Management Act with the ministerial decision-making power intact. I know that it is the reason why the power has been retained in every subsequent amendment to the Act. Given the extent of public interest in the coast it is entirely appropriate that a publicly elected individual accountable to the people makes the final decision on what will happen to the coast—not the courts. As the courts have already said it is entirely appropriate that that person can say no to the applications; otherwise what purpose is served by his or her having a power of decision in the first place? 
Although I did not take into account wider public concerns about what is happening on the coast in my decision on the Whangamata marina I am aware that the passions the issue has invoked are common to many other proposals. Considerable anxiety has been expressed by communities around the country about the amount of development on the coastline and the impact it is having on the character of our coast and on the traditional Kiwi lifestyle. 
Because of that anxiety I initiated a review of New Zealand’s coastal policy statement shortly after becoming the Minister of Conservation. The New Zealand coastal policy statement is the only national policy statement issued under the Resource Management Act. It guides councils in their decision making about what types of activities will be allowed controlled or prohibited in coastal areas. It has been in place now for the better part of a decade. In that time the pace of and trends in coastal development have changed considerably. I believe it is prudent to now re-examine how the policy is working and what we want for our coastline. An independent review of this policy has been completed and policy development is now under way. I expect to be able to release a new draft coastal policy statement for public consultation later this year through a board of inquiry. The board of inquiry will consider public submissions and hold hearings nationwide. I intend to give it broad terms of reference. That way all New Zealanders who care about the coast can have greater confidence in the system which will ensure that the development of the coast is sustainable. 
I care passionately about New Zealand; I care passionately about our coastline. I am proud to be a Kiwi and while I am the Minister of Conservation we will be looking after this country of ours.