Flavell Te Ururoa: Urgent Debates — Child Youth and Family Services Department—Merger with  Ministry of Social Development Whangamata Marina—Minister’s Intervention 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Urgent Debates — Child Youth and Family Services Department—Merger with  Ministry of Social Development Whangamata Marina—Minister’s Intervention 
[Volume:629;Page:1733] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 We come to the House today to commend the long-term commitment of Hauraki Maori to protect the coastline in the public interest of the community of Whangamata. Their actions speak to us of some key values that should resonate throughout the House: of kaupapa kaitiakitanga of manaakitanga and of respecting the covenant of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Today we acknowledge the commitment and perseverance of the Hauraki Maori Trust Board of Te Kupenga o NgatiHako and of other iwi groups that have fought a valiant battle to preserve the mauri of the natural environment and the cultural heritage of their rohe. Their submissions and appeals have played a huge part in informing the Minister’s decision. They argued that the harbour would be polluted that access to shellfish would be restricted and that other kai moana would be destroyed. The Maori Party congratulates those groups. 
We remind the House today that the process that members signed up to is the same process that they are now criticising. Although we do indeed agree with the outcome of the decision for the people of Whangamata we must make it very clear that we do not agree with some members of the House who have said that the Minister in some way subverted that process when indeed he followed the process to the letter of the law. There was always a section in the law that enabled the Minister to have the last say. He followed that process and here we are today. We have a saying in te ao Maori: e kore te patiki e hoki ki tonapuehu—the flounder never goes back to where the dust has become unsettled. That reminds us that we should not necessarily revisit policies that all members—I was not here at the time—were the architects of. Having developed the process and then having encouraged people to follow the process it is somewhat ironic that in the Chamber today we are hearing members speak with much rage and indignation about the process being overturned. 
We do however have some very real concerns about whether the issue was a legal or a moral dilemma. We need to ask whether the means justify the end. Did the Minister anticipate the upheaval that has resulted following his decision? Did the Minister anticipate that the Environment Court would turn the applicant down? We have heard reports of— 
Sandra Goudie 
: So you want to talk about the foreshore and seabed? 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: We will come to that. We have heard reports of racist abuse and racial slurs being cast throughout the community. That is not an outcome that any of us would have anticipated. Is the decision on the Whangamata marina part of the Government ethos of one law for all? The last time it made a decision like that Maori people suffered. This time it is Pakeha folk from Whangamata who are suffering except for the surfers environmentalists and ecologists. 
I ask members today to cast their minds back a couple of years to another controversial decision which was made by other Ministers to overturn a Court of Appeal finding. It was not very long ago in June 2003 that the Court of Appeal released a decision that the Maori Land Court had jurisdiction to determine the status of the foreshore and seabed under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 and the Maori Land Act. Tangata whenua have always enabled others to enjoy access to the foreshore and seabed and that fact should have been appreciated. Instead the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General at the time chose to intervene and to deny Maori due process. The rest is history. I had to laugh when listening to the Minister’s speech at his faint rebuttal when he said that the marina decision was in the interests of Maori. How lovely! Perhaps we can count on his support when we submit our bill for the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act of 2004 later this year. [ 
Interruption 
] It is funny that I did not hear him say the same things a couple of years back. 
We applaud the decision this time at Whangamata. We commend the way that it has drawn public attention to the loss of coastal habitat the increased sediment the contaminant levels in the harbour and the impact of that on the well-being of the people. Coastal areas have always been rich sources of resources for tangata whenua. Coastal iwi have consistently followed management practices that both established and enforced harvesting limits and also maintained the health of the ecosystem on which the resource is dependent. Coastal habitation sites like Whangamata are absolutely vital to the identity of iwi as well as being something of a cultural icon to surfers ecologists holidaymakers and New Zealand families. 
The Minister has made a very positive decision which reflects the influence of indigenous holistic thinking. However we fully appreciate that the Whangamata Marina Society will be reeling from the economic effects of lost opportunity and we hope very much that the Government will consider issues about repayment to those people.