The judge reviewing Conservation Minister Chris Carter's controversial decision to reject a Coromandel marina project says he does not believe the minister was biased against the project.
However, Justice John Fogarty said whether Mr Carter followed an appropriate procedure in making his decision remained a question which he still had
to decide.
The judge yesterday reserved his decision at the end of a three-day hearing of the Whangamata Marina Society's judicial review of the minister's decision. Justice Fogarty said his decision was likely to take several weeks.
That decision will be eagerly awaited not only by the marina society - which has waged a nine-year legal battle to try to build a $10 million 205-berth marina at the township - but also by politicians, as the case could have ramifications for how Cabinet ministers come to make decisions given over to their discretion.
While society lawyer Mai Chen raised several grounds for Mr Carter's decision to be reconsidered, much of the hearing was taken up with debate over meetings the minister had on January 30 with marina supporters and opponents and a subsequent visit to the proposed marina site.
Mr Carter was bound to base his decision on the marina consents on a report by the Environment Court and could not take into account extra information.
Crown lawyer Bronwyn Arthur has maintained that Mr Carter visited the Coromandel as a politician, and was able to separate out his role as a consenting authority and disregard what he saw and heard that day when making his March decision to reject the marina. That decision was based on concerns about access to kaimoana and the conservation value of a salt marsh, two issues covered by the Environment Court report.
Yesterday, Ms Chen raised doubts that Mr Carter could have fully considered the evidence, given his busy schedule and other portfolio responsibilities. "The minister had at most, on a generous interpretation of his diary, up to 10 hours to read all 1500 pages of evidence ... In contrast, Chief Judge Bollard and two expert commissioners held 27 days of hearings over a number of years to make five decisions and one ruling."
