Urgent Debate: Whangamata Marina - Minister's Intervention

The Greens are very pleased that someone has finally made some attempt to defend our coastline from inappropriate subdivision and development under the law, using the law that we have available to us to do that protection. Increasingly, favourite and beautiful holiday spots — places where the public can go to camp, to barbecue, and to picnic — are becoming little suburbias. And they are not little average Joe suburbias; they are little suburbias for the wealthy and the privileged. That is not what part of being a New Zealander means. These are not the values that New Zealanders hold for the coast.

Increasingly, we see areas like ōpoutama in the Māhia Peninsula, for example, becoming little subdivisions with a tiny little space left for those who holiday there regularly. There has been the development of Whitianga and Pāuanui, and there have even been threats to take more camping grounds off the New Zealand public, and to enable them to be privatised so that only the wealthy can get access to those coastal areas. There is increasing privatisation of public space and of the areas of land that New Zealanders hold dear to themselves and have done so for all the time we have been in this country.

Our coastal areas are incredibly important. They are pātaka kai, they are areas for recreation, and they are incredibly important parts of our identity as New Zealanders. Yet there is an increasing encroachment on them by the wealthy and by those with the privilege to privatise those areas. It is so shameful of National to take a position in support of the wealthy against the rights of the New Zealand public.

The issues at Whangamata are complex and I do not pretend to know all of the detail about them, but at the heart of the issue is the protection of our fragile coastal ecology. For example, the salt marshes have been talked about, and whether we should have 205 private berthing areas for those wealthy enough to own boats to be able to float around that area, and have car parks so that they can drive their cars to their boats and enjoy the area, whilst the thousands of people who use that area now for recreation — the ordinary families of New Zealand from around that area who use it for their recreation today — are left out.

After the foreshore and seabed debate, which was a terrible time for this country, both the Government and National refused to enable Māori customary rights over some parts of the foreshore and seabed. They argued that they did so because they did not want Māori to privatise the foreshore and seabed. They did not want Māori to own those areas, even though the opportunities for doing so were extremely slim and the law could have been fixed to make sure private ownership never happened. They argued so strongly that those areas were for the New Zealand public, for everyone to picnic at and to take their families for a swim. Yet National now says: "No, actually, some parts of the coast can be privatised." When Nick Smith talked about the foreshore and seabed in 2003, he said that the foreshore should not be privatised by stealth and that it should be protected and managed for the benefit of all New Zealanders. That is what he said about the foreshore and seabed. What is he saying now? He is saying that wealthy people are entitled to own parts of that area — that the people who can afford to do it should be able to buy parts of the foreshore for their private and personal use. Where is the consistency in that? It is a disgusting position for that party to take after its staunch opposition on the foreshore and seabed.

All the Greens have ever said is: "Be consistent, at least. Have a principle, at least." We opposed the foreshore and seabed legislation. We did not want the foreshore and seabed to be privatised either, by anybody, and we had options for making sure that would not happen. In this House today we maintain that same position. That coastline should not be privatised, and we should increasingly protect the coastline from privatisation. We maintain a consistent position. What do National members do? They change their minds depending on who has their ear at the time. It is a terrible disgrace for this House.

The Greens believe that the Minister of Conservation has exercised his statutory powers properly and carefully, and whether or not we agree with his final decision, the fact is it is a legal power that he is able to exercise, and he has exercised it rightfully. It is absolutely critical that somebody considers the matters of national importance that are part of the Resource Management Act. We need only look at section 6 of the Resource Management Act to see that as a matter of national importance we must protect the character of the coastal environment from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development. Yet that very strong principle for the protection of all New Zealanders has been abused in the past, and at some point a line must be set and a decision made that we will protect our coastline from private purchase. We will protect our coastline for the benefit of all New Zealanders. I am strongly in favour of the Minister's decision, because he has done that. Let us just hope that this sends a strong signal out to our community that someone is prepared to defend our public rights to our coastline, because somebody has to. The Minister's power must be increasingly used, otherwise we will find ourselves in situations, as across the globe, where the wealthy and people with access to resources — by whatever means — can get access to our coastal environment and ordinary New Zealanders are left out in the cold.

We are very proud that the Resource Management Act has finally been used for something constructive that will protect the interests of the people of this country. There is no point having national guidelines or national standards if they are not applied, and the Minister of Conservation has done that. A strong statement about the protection of our coastlines was made during the foreshore and seabed debate. It is timely that it is applied. If that is the principle we apply in this country — that it must be protected for the public use — then it is absolutely critical that nobody gets extra privileges just because they have a bit of extra money. The Greens believe that the right decision has been made, and we are very pleased to support it.