Goudie Sandra: Resource Management (Restricted Coastal  Activities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Resource Management (Restricted Coastal  Activities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6753] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
I am delighted to be able to speak in support of the Resource Management (Restricted Coastal Activities) Amendment Bill and I think that the Hon Nick Smith has done a sterling job in bringing it to the House. Certainly it was well overdue and I think that the Whangamata marina issue brought the matter into the forefront of the minds of the public throughout New Zealand without a doubt. What did the court find in regard to the Minister of Conservation the Hon Chris Carter? The court found that the Minister had set about reconsidering the evidence and accordingly had made a procedural error. We all know that the marina proposal was not appealed further than the Environment Court and that a lot of the people who had opposed that particular activity did not appeal against it to the Environment Court. They knew they could have another go at the Minister—and they did. The Minister fell for that so made a procedural error. 
How far can the Minister reconsider the findings of the Environment Court? The Minister in making his decision stated: “I have also considered the evidence presented to the Court the Court transcripts that were available and the comments that the applicant has provided to me”. The High Court found that under section 119 of the Resource Management Act the Minister has the discretion to differ from the recommendation of the Environment Court provided he or she takes into account the recommendation and gives reasons for the final decision. But overall the Minister’s discretion under section 119 is relatively confined and it was specifically found that it was not the function of the Minister to hear witnesses and test the quality of the evidence and submissions marshalled in support of the relevant criteria. That is what the hearing committee and the Environment Court do. If the Minister requires further clarification of the factual aspects of the matter he or she should request a report from the Environment Court or hearing committee. 
But did Chris Carter the Minister do that? No he did not. He went to Whangamata organised some meetings had about half an hour with the people in support of the Whangamata marina proposal and then spent about half a day with the rest. He went down and looked at the issue around seafood—kai moana. But even then the tide was only half out and assumptions were made about what that meant. The Minister was not in a position to be impartial about the issue when he was being persuaded by a number of people—who did not go through the process—that he should oppose the Environment Court decision. 
Another question was raised about whether the Minister was permitted to reconsider the evidence and whether he did that fairly. The court found that despite its earlier conclusion on the first argument the Minister had the power to reconsider the evidence and that the best procedure for the Minister would have been to review the transcripts in the presence of counsel from both parties who were present at the hearing. Also it found that the Minister should have used most of the available statutory period of 20 working days to review the evidence and that the fact that the Minister left that critical task until the weekend before the decision was released was unfair. Accordingly the court found that the decision was in breach of natural justice and that the Minister had made yet another error of law. So we have two counts of errors already; it is pretty amazing. 
It is no wonder that Nick Smith is putting forward the Resource Management (Restricted Coastal Activities) Amendment Bill because it is high time for the Minister’s discretion in that regard to be removed. That is what this bill is all about. That is what the Whangamata marina case has highlighted. There we had the Minister fail on two counts of law; that has been found to be the case. Was it proper and fair for the Minister to state that he had “disregarded the comments made to me”—his words—at meetings at Whangamata? That was when on 30 January 2006 he had the several meetings that I talked about. He met with people who were for and against the proposal but the time he spent with the people who were for the proposal was totally outweighed by the time spent with those who were opposed to it. Those same people—those opposed to it—had not gone through the proper process. They were lobbying the Minister vigorously. So how could one say that the Minister was not unduly influenced by that? 
Members may recall that under new section 119 in clause 4 of this bill the Minister is statutorily prohibited from considering new evidence and must go back to the Environment Court. That is what this bill is all about. It is a very small bill of only six clauses but it is vitally important.