Chadwick Steve: Urgent Debates — Child Youth and Family Services Department—Merger with  Ministry of Social Development Whangamata Marina—Minister’s Intervention 
Chadwick Steve: Urgent Debates — Child Youth and Family Services Department—Merger with  Ministry of Social Development Whangamata Marina—Minister’s Intervention 
[Volume:629;Page:1737] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 In the House today we are hearing a lot of railing against the Whangamata decision. It is not coming from the banded rail a species on the classification list that is threatened by the Whangamata proposal but from members of the Opposition who themselves could be seen as a threatened species on that list. I heard the member opposite say that the use of the law that the ministerial powers invoke was just a weak excuse—and that from a member who went out and slashed mangroves. It is simply a disgrace to say in this House that the Minister is hiding behind the law. 
Sandra Goudie 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member has just charged me with cutting mangroves and that is actually not true. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not a point of order; it is a point of debate. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: This has been a long process and we do understand that it has also been a very complex process under way since 1994. National members though have demonstrated that they simply get grumpy and cynical when the law goes against them and when as is this case they did not get their way. This Government is a caretaker of our lands our coasts and our seas— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What did the council decide? What about local decision-making? 
STEVE CHADWICK 
:—as that previous Minister of Conservation well understands. 
The Minister’s decision making must be made based on recommendations—they were only recommendations not decisions or rulings—from the Environment Court. The court did not make a ruling; it made a recommendation to the Minister of Conservation. The Minister followed a law passed by National and exercised his right under section 119 of the Resource Management Act of 1991. The High Court noted in 2002 in a decision made in Hastings that the Environment Court does not make decisions on restricted coastal activities— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I ask the member to please be seated; I want to rule. Reasonable interjections are obviously acceptable but barraging is not. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: As the High Court noted in the Hastings decision in 2002 if the Minister was not able to depart from the recommendation of the Environment Court there would be no point in vesting the Minister with the ultimate decision-making power. The Minister is not merely a rubber stamp. The Minister is able—indeed required—to exercise his own judgment. In this case and as the Minister said he has 25 applications annually and this is the first to be declined. I am sure that is why there is this cynical railing of the Opposition. 
The Minister is not going against the advice of his own department. The Department of Conservation initially opposed the marina because of its environmental impacts and it lodged an appeal against the Waikato Regional Council’s approval of it in 1997. However under pressure on the department in 1999 by the then Minister of Conservation the Hon Nick Smith—who is so rudely shouting at me—the department was forced to withdraw its appeal and settle. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Can I draw to the member’s attention that I have already ruled that reasonable interjections are allowed but not barraging interjections. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Earlier the House allowed me to table a document to show what the member says is not true. The department came to an agreement in 1998—it is simply not possible— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows that that is not a point of order; that is a point of debate. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: It is ironic that the department was— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Tell the truth. 
Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Just now and indeed two or three times previous to that Dr Smith called out “tell the truth” which is an unparliamentary remark and is not allowed. So I ask him to withdraw and apologise for that and to bring his outbursts into line with the Standing Orders. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I have warned the member several times about the constant barraging and I ask him to be reasonable about interjections. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: One remains cynical about why the department was forced to withdraw its appeal and settle with the Whangamata Marina Society. 
What future action has the Minister proposed along with the decision that he made on the Whangamata marina? This is about a review of the coastal policy statement and it has been stated in the House that this is now 12 years old. I think it is time because coastal use and coastal values are important to all New Zealanders not only those related to the Whangamata marina application which involves 200 boaties. All New Zealanders are very concerned about coastal access coastal use coastal and land use and the relationship to the Oceans Policy. The Minister has announced that he is appointing a board of inquiry to hear public submissions on a new coastal policy statement with very broad terms of reference. The member opposite also knows that the Local Government and Environment Committee had a briefing on the Oceans Policy just this year and learnt of the call for an integrated approach to oceans and coastal management. In fact 37 laws and 25 agencies have an impact on the way we manage the coastal margins and our oceans. Of course we need to integrate and rationalise our decisions there. 
We are aware of the costs of the Whangamata Marina Society and the costs to date are not insubstantial. But the law can and must be applied and in this case it was applied appropriately. Any judicial review would decide whether appropriate action was taken. 
We would all agree that the foreshore should not be privatised by stealth and I tell Dr Smith that all New Zealanders would agree with that. We must not pick away at the coast on a piecemeal approach—an iconic piece of our New Zealand landscape that impacts so much on our Kiwi way of life and indeed the six Hauraki iwi who also opposed this marina decision. Local decisions must be taken into account and that principle was reiterated by the Minister in question time today. 
We can wage a war on the volume of emails—and they have been voluminous—survey responses done by media and phone calls. But that will not give us the durable answers that we need for the development of our coastal estate. We do not need to promote change just for change’s sake but we do need to build on what we know is working well and change only what we must change on an all-of-Government approach including input from users in the public. 
This Government is responsible for finding durable and sustainable solutions for land coastal and oceans management and we will continue to pursue sustainable results.