Copeland Gordon: Urgent Debates — Child Youth and Family Services Department—Merger with  Ministry of Social Development Whangamata Marina—Minister’s Intervention 
Copeland Gordon: Urgent Debates — Child Youth and Family Services Department—Merger with  Ministry of Social Development Whangamata Marina—Minister’s Intervention 
[Volume:629;Page:1731] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 First of all I would like to express my thanks to Madam Speaker for allowing the Minister’s decision to be debated in the House today because that is just and proper. We are at the heart of this issue looking at an unprecedented deliberate veto by the Hon Chris Carter that overturns a decision or a recommendation of the Environment Court. In response to the Green Party members when they talked about “no one” I ask: does that include a duly convened court of law? Why do they conclude that wisdom resides in one single person to the exclusion of an entire community an entire process and a properly convened court of law? 
Central to this issue is justice. Surely the reason for being here the raison d’être for this Parliament’s existence is to uphold the standards of justice in this country. The people of New Zealand elect us as a Parliament to ensure that the system is fair and just and in this particular situation there is no doubt whatever in my mind that the result that has been arrived at is completely unjust. We should be the ones who take it upon ourselves to guarantee justice to the citizens of New Zealand and the Minister’s actions I believe violate that key principle. 
Let us consider the facts as we know them. The Whangamata Marina Society has followed due process a process of law that was laid down by this Parliament. The process has taken no fewer than 14 years. I repeat: 14 years of effort has gone into it. It has cost $1.3 million and all of that culminated in the decision of the Environment Court headed by the specialist in this area the person who has the responsibility for the decision and who made a decision I believe without fear or favour as an independent member of our judiciary which under our constitutional rules is of course independent of Parliament. By any definition that we can imagine it was a thorough process. Every relevant fact and I am sure many irrelevant facts were taken into consideration. The views of all were considered. There was analysis dissection and study. Scientific tests were carried out ad nauseam—one could say when considering that it was a 14-year process to the point of exhaustion—firstly by the local territorial authority and then all over again by the Environment Court. 
Everyone had a say: local citizens iwi and the Department of Conservation—which of course is the Minister’s very own department—and they had expressed their contentment with the marina. As has been outlined to the House earlier the Department of Conservation actually entered into a contractual arrangement saying that it would no longer oppose the marina. The court finally made its decision which was of course that the marina could and should proceed. So it seems to me to be an almost capricious response that the Minister has decided to exercise his reserve power and veto the decision following that whole process. How can that be just? How can that be fair? How can that be right? 
The Minister’s response in the House today was simply to say that he followed the right procedures and had the legal ability to overturn the court’s decision. Therefore as happened with the  
Dominion Post 
 and TV3 in relation to the cartoons of Mohammed and as happened with the “Bloody Mary” episode on  
South Park 
 he basically said that because he had the right to do it he would do it. I remember full well that on the occasions I have mentioned the Minister Chris Carter told the media—it was on television—that just because one can do something that does not mean one should do it. I think in this case he has actually gone against his own principle and violated that. It is not a good argument to say that he followed the right process and he has the authority to do something so he will do it. Chris Carter needs to be able to demonstrate objectively in relation to the facts of the matter that indeed he reconsidered the court decision. 
The Minister should be able to spell out to this House which he has failed to do exactly what his grounds were. Where was the Environment Court wrong? Where were the local people wrong? What new considerations did he bring in? As has been pointed out even if the Minister had some justifiable concerns about the marina why did he not refer the matter back to the Environment Court? It seems to me that it is unwise to give the Minister a veto power in our legislation but as long as we have it it should certainly be the very last option and every other option should be looked at first. Otherwise we come to the situation where literally one person has the ability to overturn a decision that has gone through a 14-year process. 
In a question to the Minister today I drew attention to the fact that recently a court in New Zealand has ordered the Rt Hon Winston Peters to pay costs of $30000— 
Bob Clarkson 
: $40000. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: —$40000—I beg the member’s pardon; I meant to say $40000—to Bob Clarkson now the member for Tauranga which was actually a 50 percent contribution to the costs of $80000 the member had incurred in defending an action against him. Well fifty-fifty means just that and there is another injustice here. It is the fact that as I mentioned earlier the society spent $1.3 million and that money is down the drain. That money which was spent in good faith following the law of this country has gone down the drain. It is a significant loss by any standards and I think that is quite wrong. 
We also need to ask ourselves where the Minister’s decision leaves the community of Whangamata. Is it alone amongst the coastal communities of New Zealand to do without a marina? Is that what the decision means? I believe that it does mean that. I believe it means that for all time unless we do something about it as a Parliament there will be no marina in Whangamata. If the Minister disputes that and says that there is an alternative site then let him tell us where it is. Let him define exactly an alternative site that would satisfy his environmental concerns so that the people of that community can have a marina. Why should they be denied what so many other people in virtually every other coastal community in New Zealand have been given? Why should we separate them out as it were for special negative treatment? 
Or are the people of Whangamata now to go back and start the whole process all over again on an alternative site? Are they to take another 14 years of effort and spend another $1.3 million? I would ascertain that allowing for inflation over those 14 years it would cost at least $2.6 million. Is that the only option that the decision leaves them with? I think it probably is. That is the hard reality and I do not think that it is fair. 
United Future will therefore give its support to the member’s bill in Nick Smith’s name which attempts to overturn the Minister’s decision. I know that in the normal course of events we do not like retrospective legislation but I want to draw the attention of the House to the bigger picture which is that we are here in the pursuit of justice. We should look at the decision objectively and say that we got it wrong that it is a totally unjust result for the people of Whangamata considering all the effort they have put in and that we should revisit the decision. 
The Government itself should also think about rectifying the situation. It has the ability to bring a Government bill to the House. We do not even know whether Nick Smith’s bill will ever come out of the ballot. In contrast with that the Government has a clear straightforward opportunity to bring a bill to the House and to overturn the decision. I totally agree with the statements of the Prime Minister and of Chris Carter during the election campaign that this kind of decision should be devolved to a local community. That is central to the political philosophy of the party I represent United Future. We believe that local communities should be responsible for local issues and that it should not be acceptable to the House or to the country for a single human being to come along and say he or she knows better is wiser and has access to more information than the local community. None of that stacks up to any decent analysis. So I say to the Government that I think that it should act in order to fix this matter. I know there would be some political embarrassment associated with overruling one of its own Cabinet Ministers but frankly I believe that justice demands no less than to do that.