Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill

Steve Chadwick Link to this

The member sponsoring the bill says that that was not true. I say, as a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, and as my colleague John Carter will confirm, the Ministry for the Environment made very plain that it does not support this bill. This bill should be called the “Lynne Pillay (Save Her Bacon) Election Bill”.

How populist is that!

Pillay Lynne Pillay Link to this

Well, it is! I have to tell Steve Chadwick this bill is bad law. It is more about politics than it is about doing the right thing for the environment, and that is exactly why members on this side of the House will oppose it.

Members will have heard often that we need to get greater clarity into our environmental laws. I would like to ask the House how a law that states: “this land is a fish.”, is going to have a better result. What we are proposing in Lynne Pillay’s bill is to put into the law of the land the statement that “this land is a fish.” I am respectful—

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The bill is not my bill; it is a bill from the local authorities in Waitakere and the Auckland region.

Robertson The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this

That is not a point of order; it is a debating point.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We listened respectfully to Lynne Pillay’s contribution, but where members’ speeches are unnecessarily interrupted, there is a practice of the member with the call being able to go back to the beginning of his or her speech, and I suggest that that should be applied, because that was a complete non - point of order.

Robertson The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this

I am the sole judge of that.

Pillay Lynne Pillay Link to this

This bills states—and puts into law—the words: “this land is a fish.” I cannot believe that there are members of this House who think that that will somehow provide greater clarity for the administrators of the Resource Management Act in making good decisions about how we manage the environment. I am respectful of people’s religions, and I, in many environments, am happy to have such statements made—on the marae and in other places—but it has no place in the law; it is garbage, as is this bill.

A further point with the Resource Management Act is the huge complexity of plans that we have within that Act. I remind members that for the Waitakere Ranges we have to have a district plan, we have to have a regional plan, we have to have national coastal policy statements, and we even have to have a long-term community plan. What this bill attempts to do is to introduce a new layer of planning into the Resource Management Act. We are now going to have to have local area plans as well. So for an area included in this legislation we are now going to have to have local area plans, a district plan, and a regional plan, as well as the national policy statements and one specifically for the coast.

I have to ask members opposite: “Is not that a nonsense?”. This is a little country of 4 million people, and we now have to have four tiers of planning documents to look after the environment. Members on this side of the House say we do not need more plans, we do not need more tiers, we do not need more bureaucracy; we need better environmental outcomes.

Then we come to some of the issues that have been raised by the member. There is in law, right now, the capacity for the Waitakere City Council to be able to rewrite its district plan. National is of the view that, at the moment, the time it takes on average to change a plan under the Resource Management Act is 9 years. That is a nonsense. For it to take 9 years for those people who are standing for election in Waitakere and other parts of New Zealand to be able to implement their policy as to what they think is the right protection for the environment is a nonsense, and this bill will make it worse.

I say to members opposite that there are, rightly, problems with the Resource Management Act about dealing with cumulative effects. But why are we going to fix them only in the Waitakere Ranges? What about in Queenstown? What about in Banks Peninsula? What about in Motueka? What about in Waipukurau? Why are cumulative effects to be taken into account only in the area of the Waitakere Ranges, and not in any other part of the country? The real answer is that the member and the councils do not have the capacity to fix the whole Resource Management Act, so they are going about it in a piecemeal way.

Then let us look at the member’s management of this bill. This bill was reported back by the Local Government and Environment Committee on 24 May. Why is it, I ask the sponsor, that it has not come up on any of the 6 previous members’ days?

Because we’re busy.

Bennett Paula Bennett Link to this

They say they are busy! I will tell members why. It is because the member has not had the support of the House on those occasions, so she has manipulated the parliamentary process to try to save those members from an embarrassing defeat. What National says about this bill is that it says everything about the culture of bureaucracy, the culture of more laws, the culture of more plans, and the culture of more uncertainty that is at the heart of the problems we have with our environment.

I want the next speaker opposite to somehow explain how having another tier of plans will help. I commend Paula Bennett, who I think is on the money. She has said: “Look, we members on this side of the House think the Waitakere Ranges are a special place in Auckland and in New Zealand.” We also note that there is not a single national park north of Taupō. I am attracted to the idea that the Waitakere Ranges should be a national park, as Paula Bennett has proposed. Does that need a law? No, it simply requires an application by the Minister of Conservation to the New Zealand Conservation Authority.

I ask members opposite why, if they really care about the Waitakere Ranges, they have not lodged an application with the New Zealand Conservation Authority for that area to become a national park. That would make some sense and it would provide for a special protection for this particular area.

What concerns me deeply about this bill is that submission after submission, and advice from official after official, said we cannot say with any level of definitiveness what this bill will actually do. It is so full of waffle, so full of expectations and long words. We can ask basic questions, like: “Am I going to be able to convert my land to a vineyard? Am I going to be able to include a new wine-processing facility? Am I going to be able to build a garage on my property? Am I going to be able to put a granny flat on my property?”. The advice from the officials is that they do not know. Members on this side of the House say they have had enough of sloppy, woolly law that is designed for politics, rather than for getting good environmental outcomes.

I challenge the member opposite to give us a bill that will improve the environment, and we will be happy to talk. Give us a bill that will improve the certainty of the Resource Management Act, and we will be there to talk. But we do not want woolly laws that talk about the land being a fish, and all sorts of other nonsense. This is woolly, foolish law. It is no wonder that our own Ministry for the Environment advised against it proceeding. This bill has more to do with politics than with good environmental law.

National says that the right way forward for the Waitakere Ranges is a national park, as proposed by Paula Bennett, and we should reject this bill. Steve Chadwick and the smarter members on the select committee know that it is political hogwash, know that it is all about politics, and know that those who really care about the environment are interested in good, concise, robust law and not this silly, woolly-washy stuff that will only make worse the problems we currently have with the Resource Management Act.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) Link to this

I am excited to take a call on the second reading of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. Too right, it is all about politics. Let us just examine the politics behind this bill. This bill is a local bill. This bill has been put up by three territorial local authorities and one regional council, and it says everything about the two major parties in this House. On this side of the House is a party that supports local decision-making. This bill has been developed by these local authorities over the last 30 years, and not once did any of those three territorial local authorities and the regional council ask for a national park—but of course the member opposite who lives in Titirangi and is a list MP, Paula Bennett, is a new member. I defer to my colleague Lynne Pillay who has worked alongside these authorities, listened to them, listened to iwi, and found a resolution that matches and gets around both the Resource Management Act and the wishes of these authorities.

This is interesting politics. This is exactly how we want to see this huge territorial area of Auckland working. We all know that, in this House. We want to see local authorities working collegially, with the support of regional councils. I say: “Bring on more types of legislation like this. Well done, Waitakere.” This legislation is progressive, it is really good thinking, and it is so positive to see authorities that work together off the rank. I congratulate those authorities today on this work.

The bill has certainly had a long gestation; it was under the original guardianship of the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt, who told us 30 years ago that this is what people in that region wanted when they saw the incremental creep of development and expansion from Auckland as the metropolitan city. They chose to live in the Waitakere Ranges. They chose to live out there for a lifestyle and for a love of the ecology and the environment. [Interruption] He is now a great MP, but not 30 years ago—it was Jonathan Hunt. He will be really thrilled to know that collectively today we are going to protect his beloved Waitakere Ranges for whenever he returns home. I am sure he will stroll around them with great joy in his heart.

I also acknowledge the passion of my “westie” colleagues, Lynne Pillay, David Cunliffe, Chris Carter, and Darien Fenton, who cajoled, lobbied, amended, and determined progress on the bill. I say to the members opposite that, yes, we needed to get support to get this bill through and we were determined to wait until we did the groundwork with other parties, as is the role of a good MMP Government, to get the numbers to get such lofty legislation through to this stage today. I say to Lynne Pillay that that is no mean feat, and I take my hat off to her as a colleague and fellow electorate MP.

Let us just look at what Paula Bennett said about the bill. She was opposed to it. She is a new member and has no idea about the complexities of district planning or about regional council responsibilities with the Resource Management Act. She said: “Let’s just have a national park.” Well, I do not think that member opposite ever wrote to the Minister of Conservation saying: “Let’s make Titirangi and Waitakere a national park.”

That’s not true. I have tabled the letter.

STEVE CHADWICK Link to this

If the member did, I say good on her. But this was our approach—supporting those councils. So there was a member going against the local authorities in the very region in which she lived, and who had disclosed the idea of a national park.

The Local Government and Environment Committee worked really well on this bill—and we had a challenge, as my colleague Nick Smith says. It was complex for us. It was certainly very complex trying to work through the overlapping, and making sure that we were not putting this bill above the precedents and order of the Resource Management Act. But when the select committee went out to Waitakere, in Auckland, we saw Opposition vehemence. Those who came told us about public meetings where the community was whipped up into a state of anxiety and fear by Opposition members with preconceived notions that people’s very lifestyles would be degraded by this bill. I found that really sad, and it is not the way responsible members of the House should act. They should be showing leadership to find solutions for legislation that is before a select committee, not sustaining bad feelings out in the community.

I especially want to acknowledge the work of the Hon Marian Hobbs, the previous Minister for the Environment, who shared some of Nick Smith’s concerns. She also had an in-depth knowledge of the Resource Management Act and how it applied to the very lofty, but cross-boundary, approach that these local authorities were undertaking. Her contribution was enormously helpful when the select committee heard 200 submissions and considered advice from officials.

The members of the select committee always understood that this area is of great significance. We heard about the significance of its cultural value and environmental value to the people of this region. We saw for ourselves the growing pressures of urbanisation on this very, very fragile ecological area, which has a very high rainfall. People have only to go there to see that for themselves. I believe we got the balance right in managing urban growth and development, with the sustainable protection of the natural and cultural value of the Waitakere Ranges. The ranges are very, very special; so are the foothills—and the ranges and foothills had to be taken as one. This area is the playground of Auckland people, and this bill will strengthen their playground.

We truly considered the social and economic aspects as well as the environmental aspects, and that is what we were expected to do under the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002. I think this legislation is quite iconic, because it encapsulates all the aspects of that Act. We took considerable advice to match the provisions of this bill with the provisions of both the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act—especially in new section 10AA, inserted by clause 9, where we attempted to clarify, and give certainty to, this relationship.

Opposition members did a very good job in building up fears and anxieties in that community. They said the bill would add costs and endless restrictions, and cause delays in granting consents. But that is not the case. In fact, this is rather elegant legislation. Through the use of local area plans and the consolidation of the local area plans of three local authorities, we have simplified the Resource Management Act process. That is the very issue that the member opposite will take out to the community during the next election. That member will use rhetoric to say that the Resource Management Act is a load of old crock and needs to be fixed. Well, it was fixed 2 years ago with 14 amendments to the legislation. Only 1 percent of consents have gone to the Environment Court. The legislation has certainly been amended and strengthened.

In conclusion, this bill is a local bill. It is what the people of the area want. It had 80 percent community support. The bill was promoted by the Waitakere City Council, the Rodney District Council, and the Auckland Regional Council. The bill will provide a long-term policy framework with statutory support, and it will now address the cumulative effects—something the Resource Management Act cannot do on its own. We all acknowledged that fact in the select committee. At this time in the local body electoral cycle, the bill will provide long-term certainty beyond the 3-year electoral cycle. The Waitakere Ranges will possess a nationally significant status under this legislation.

Bennett PAULA BENNETT (National) Link to this

I thank the House for the opportunity to talk on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. [ Interruption] I hear little threats from the opposite side of the Chamber that my speech will be sent to wherever the members there like to send it. I say: “Good luck!”. I say to the previous speaker, the chairwoman of the Local Government and Environment Committee, if that was a promotional speech, then it was not a particularly good one. As chairwoman she sat through the submission process and heard from both sides about just how hugely contentious this bill is in the west Auckland area and in Waitakere. I say that for her to stand in this House and try to blame the Opposition for stirring up a process is wrong. This issue was already well on the way before I came along as a candidate, and was well on the way when there were meetings with over 600 people present, where the things being raised were real concerns. The member thinks that if one has an opinion, one is stirring up feelings out in the community. That is another example of how nervous Government members feel about having a debate on the actual issue, instead of making personal attacks and doing everything else that they do. That is all good and all fine, and I tell them to bring it on however they like, quite frankly.

Never before has a local bill, in the experience of some of my colleagues who have been around Parliament far longer than I have, been as contentious as this bill in a local area. The people who spoke in the submission process were heartfelt, genuine, and emotional about the bill, and that came from both sides of the argument. That is the reality; both sides sat there. It was bad enough to read their submissions, but to hear them speak—and we heard over 90 of them in the Waitakere area when we went there—really struck us. It would be fair to say members of the committee from both sides felt that way, and we could see the issue was very personal for a lot of people on both sides of the argument. It was interesting, though, that the argument pretty quickly turned into one of the Government members of the committee trying to espouse the view, as they were today as well, that it was one between eco-angels and devil developers. Of course, there is nothing further from the truth. I have yet to meet anyone who wants to see any sort of tight-fitting subdivision in either the ranges or the foothills. That is the reality.

It is appropriate to hear about some of the problems and to give a voice to some of the people who are absolutely struggling under what they perceive this legislation will actually mean for them. One states: “My whānau owns a 6 acre property surrounded by an urban environment, a long way from the Waitakere Ranges. We made an application to the council to gain consent to build a granny flat for our whānau.”—for the parents, actually. The person goes on to state: “At the time of lodging our application, we were advised that although a discretionary activity, there was no issue from their perspective. It has now cost our whānau $9,000 to try and meet the council’s existing RMA requirements.” So the whānau had got all the neighbours’ approval without any difficulty, and it was easy to get the council’s consent. However, the person then states: “We have since learnt that the proposed Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill has been influential in stalling the application process in gaining resource consent and may prevent us from building suitable accommodation for our parents.” We heard those sorts of stories time and time again from people.

Let us get some of the realities into this debate and talk about what this legislation means for people. It is easy to make legislation that will go across the area and be woolly in its language, and it will be interpreted by lawyers at the end of the day, because that is what happens. Government members can put up all the arguments in the world, but this issue is about people and is about what this legislation means for them in their area. That is what is really important.

I was really taken by one story of a family that had been in the area since 1860. The family talked about its forebears having been part of the milling process, and said one could certainly see the changes in the area that have occurred in well over 130 or 140 years. The family said one would be almost ashamed to think one’s forebears were part of the milling process at that time. But that family is now very proud of the regeneration its members have been a part of. There can be as much research as one wants, on the other side. One can certainly see the results of that, and can walk around and see the evidence of the regeneration that has taken place because of the input of local people and what they are doing in the area.

I put a challenge forward in all seriousness to my own colleagues and to all MPs, including those in the Māori Party, I say to Mr Sharples. I put a challenge forward to the House. I ask those MPs who are voting in support of this bill to demonstrate their understanding and appreciation of the effects of it by voluntarily covenanting their own titles to properties within their personal control, those properties being anywhere in New Zealand, with the same classification and restrictions that will apply to landowners in the Waitakere area covered under this legislation. If they are not prepared to do that, their own consciences should direct them to vote against this bill. As my colleague pointed out, many areas within New Zealand could come under provisions like those in this legislation. MPs who are prepared to support this bill should stand up and say they will have their own whānau and own land affected by the same restrictions that they are putting people under in the Waitakere Ranges area. So all MPs who support the bill should stand up—including Māori MPs—and be proud that what they are doing is putting in place a covenant that will have restrictions on the use of their land. If that makes us all feel better, then I say good luck to us.

Now there is no actual protection greater than that given to the land in a national park. There is no Act that gives greater protection than that, so if we are truly serious about giving this land the greatest possible protection, then that is what we should be doing. There are no national parks north of Taupō, as we have already said, and giving the Waitakere Ranges that status would actually lock in that sort of protection. The National Parks Act states, in section 4(1), that its provisions are “for the purpose of preserving in perpetuity as national parks, for their intrinsic worth and for the benefit, use, and enjoyment of the public, areas of New Zealand that contain scenery of such distinctive quality, ecological systems, or natural features so beautiful, unique, or scientifically important that their preservation” should be covered. That covers the Waitakere Ranges without a doubt.

We can look at the argument and see that it has been turned into one of groups being absolutely pitched against one another, and we can look at the numerous surveys that have been done. It was quite interesting to find, in the process of hearing submissions, that when my colleague Mr John Carter asked every submitter whether he or she had been surveyed about the bill, not a single one of them could stand up and say that he or she had. It was really quite fascinating to be unable to find the people who had been surveyed, and there were questions about whether the survey was truly as representative as had been said. People choose to live in areas like the Waitakere Ranges because they absolutely love them. I think there is evidence, time and time again, of the care and protection that people give to this area. In all fairness, when one looks at some of the properties and the way they are treated, one sees they are treated better than the Auckland Regional Council and the local councils treat their properties. That happens because the owners care more about them than the councils do about their properties, and they actually make sure they put their energy into them.

I truly, truly believe that it is a bad precedent for Parliament to bypass the checks and balances of the plan-making process in the Environment Court and impose what is an overriding plan. I fundamentally, in myself, think this bill is bad legislation. It is an absolute shame that it will not do what those well-intentioned people hope it will do. Some people have gone out and said that this is the way they want to protect the ranges. I, unlike the members on the other side of the House, am not going to stand up and lambaste those on the other side who have a different opinion from mine. I actually think that they are quite well intentioned, and that fundamentally they are trying to protect the ranges. I think that is what the council is trying to do, and that it is well intentioned. But it is our fundamental belief that this legislation will not protect the ranges, and that its ramifications actually go far outside that briefing.

This bill has been a learning experience for me—I do not make any pretences about that. I have learnt more than I previously knew about local area plans, about district councils, about councils and their own regional plans, and about long-term council community plans. I have learnt about the process of going to the community and asking what it wants, and, boy, at times I heard that it was a very, very long process to achieve what it wants. Orātia is actually a classic example of a community with its own long-term council community plan. The people there were actually saying that they felt they had gone through a process that was long term and understandable, and that to see legislation like this come in and cut through what they as individuals had already participated in was hugely hurtful and detrimental to them.

In conclusion, I say we just do not believe that this bill will protect the ranges to the same extent as such a process would, and for that reason we will be voting against it.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) Link to this

Mention has been made that the Local Government and Environment Committee considered this Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill and improved on it, but for the sake of people who are listening, I just want to reflect upon the composition of the select committee. There were four National members, four Labour members, and one Green member. I think we have to recognise that the balance of power lay with the one Green member, and that that composition is not necessarily a reflection of the composition of the House itself. Although it is not unusual in an MMP environment to have that sort of arrangement in our select committees, it does not necessarily mean it reflects the House as a whole.

I lived for a while up in Waiatarua. For people who do not know it, it is right up the top. It is a word that has entered the international language—the language of international athletics—because Waiatarua is a long, gruelling run, and it came from when Arthur Lydiard used to train the likes of Peter Snell. One of the most unusual things that would happen up there was that one would get up in the morning and it would be bright and sunny. Then as one descended down through the Waitakere Ranges through the clouds, there would be a misty, moisty morning below them.

Also I taught at Henderson Intermediate School and lived in Glen Eden. Every morning I used to go through Parrs Cross Road, past Bruce McLaren Intermediate, and through to Henderson Intermediate itself. That reminds me, in fact, of Dr Pita Sharples. He cajoled us at that particular time to go for a long march over the Waitakeres one Saturday morning to raise money for the Hoani Waititi Marae. Certainly I am very much aware not only of the ranges—the park and the heritage area—but also of the foothills.

When I was teaching at Henderson Intermediate in 1974-75, a long time ago, Lincoln Road was largely orchards and vineyards from the intermediate school onwards. Now it is just absolutely packed; it is the middle of suburbia. There is the Warehouse, Mitre 10, Pak ‘N Save, and you name it. It is certainly a completely different place.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that there is no need to convince me of the beauty of the Waitakere Ranges and of how important they are to Auckland, our largest city. In a way they dominate the city. If we sit at Eden Park, what do we look out at? We see the Waitakeres, in the same way as the Blue Mountains dominate Sydney.

However, I now live at a place called Ngunguru. That also has an iconic sand spit, which is under the threat of development by a rapacious property development company. In Northland there is a whole pile of iconic places. In the Bay of Islands—for example, the area around Kawakawa and Ōhaeāwai—there were a lot of significant battles, as Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith would know. Ruapekapeka is there. If one goes further north there is Doubtless Bay, where Surville came into Brody’s Creek and dropped three anchors, and there is Lake Ohia and the gumfields—whole piles of iconic places.

This legislation is based upon the assumption or premise that our existing legislation is not working or that it is flawed. In fact, the select committee report actually states this. It states quite clearly that it does not work. It states: “The bill reflects the promoters’ belief that further local statutory guidance is needed to provide sufficient long-term protection to the heritage area from the adverse cumulative effects of urban growth and development.” People cannot tell me that the Waitakere Ranges is the only place that is facing those cumulative effects. I can tell members that the coastline area around Ngunguru is certainly facing the same things, and John Carter will also tell members that.

It has always been New Zealand First’s position that if there is a fundamental flaw in the legislation that is supposed to be operating, then one goes back and fixes up that legislation; we do not do it on a piecemeal, bit by bit process. That is exactly what we did with the Hauraki Gulf Maritime Park Bill. We said that if there was something wrong with the planning mechanisms that are already in place that are supposed to be protecting the environment, then let us go back and fix those up, instead of fixing up something that is just in that particular place. So New Zealand First is not able to support this bill, and we say that with regret because we recognise the sincerity of the person in whose name the bill is. However, we believe that it points to something that actually requires a different answer.

The second thing—and this, we believe, is a real flaw—is that the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area will encompass 27,720 hectares of public and private land. Elsewhere we are told that the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park, which exists now, contains some 17,000 hectares. That, by the way, is the playground we are talking about; not the 10,000 hectares of private land, which is not the playground of Aucklanders, I have to say. Yet this heritage area will encompass 10,000 acres and, as has already been said, 22,000 people will effectively lose at least some of the property rights they have at the moment. Therefore, New Zealand First has some real difficulties with this particular approach.

New Zealand First thinks it is certainly worthwhile looking at the suggestion put forward by Paula Bennett, although we believe it is even more important that we go back to the fundamental legislation around the Resource Management Act and get that sorted out so that we have adequate protections against the cumulative effects, which the Resource Management Act does not take into account at the moment. In fact, the Resource Management Act is an enabling Act, which means that even if councils want to do something about the cumulative effects, they are often restricted from doing so. Certainly we believe that we need to go back to the Resource Management Act and work on that.

I will just point out that we concur with the National minority view in the commentary on the bill. I will read some of it out: “This bill adds a mechanism for the development of local area plans (LAPS). These will sit alongside district, regional, and national plans. Councils are also required to have annual plans and Long Term Council Community Plans (LTCCPs). These multiple and complex plan processes add confusion and cost to local government at a time when the public is in revolt over rating increases.” New Zealand First concurs with that particular point. We believe that it is at the nub of the particular question we have here.

Therefore, New Zealand First will not be able to support this bill—as we stated, in fact, during the first reading debate. We will be voting against it. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Locke KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this

The Green Party is strongly in support of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. It comes out of a long campaign generated by the people of the area of Waitakere City, and people in the ranges in particular, headed by the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society. I am proud that a number of Greens have been involved in that campaign. One Kath Dewar has held a leading office in that society, and a long campaign drew support from the community, MPs, the Waitakere City Council, the Rodney District Council, and the Auckland Regional Council. They are all supporting this bill.

I think what is happening here today through this bill is important for the whole country. In fact, the term “national significance” comes into the bill as a back-up—the reason for implementing this bill. But it is important for the whole of Auckland. Aucklanders, the people in our biggest city, travel regularly into the heritage area, either into the foothills, the park itself, or to the seashore environment on the western side of the heritage area. Solutions like a national park are not particularly appropriate because 30 percent of the heritage area is in private hands, and that is the nub of a lot of the problem—that private land is under pressure for greater subdivision. That affects all of us, not just the people who go into the heritage area but people like myself, who, as Brian Donnelly just mentioned, can see the Waitakere Ranges from Eden Park. I live in Mount Eden and every morning I look out at that vista too, and I do not want it to degenerate into just a backdrop of houses. I like that backdrop of the Waitakere Ranges.

It is even more important to protect this area because of the expansion of Auckland in terms of population and geographical spread. We have to put restraints there. There are pressures for greater subdivision of private land. There are the normal pressures, through the planning process, where people look for all exceptional circumstances and creep around the regulations however strongly we try to put them in, and that has been happening. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment called it death by a thousand cuts. Bit by bit the number of subdivisions expands and the lot size has gone down over the years. The average lot size used to be 20 hectares in that rural backdrop; now it is gone down to 4 hectares, and there is pressure for it to go down further. There is, in reality, a creep through the existing plan and Resource Management Act system towards further subdivision to a disadvantageous extent, and that is reinforced by the way land prices are now. As everyone knows, housing prices and land prices have gone up hugely, which brings that extra pressure for people to make money out of subdivisions.

Then there is the population pressure in Auckland. That puts a lot of pressure on subdivision, particularly when we have politicians like John Key suggesting that the city edge be extended out into green areas in the west. That would lead to more subdivision as well. We can have good and bad Governments, and some of the Governments allow more subdivision that way, and we can have good and bad councils. The problem is that we need only one bad council with a bad district plan that allows a lot of subdivision, and that will muck things up for future generations. I think that Mike Lee put it nicely in a submission he made to the select committee. He said that this bill provides us with a long-term instrument for getting the right economic, cultural, social, and environmental balance for the heritage area. The bill itself talks about looking at things in totality, or holistically, and in a long-term way. Sometimes, unless we have that sort of framework for looking at things holistically and in a long-term way, we will go wrong, particularly in a heritage area such as this, which, as the bill points out, is of national significance.

All the important aspects of the heritage area are spelt out in 10 recitals in the preamble to the bill. There are a lot of ecosystems in that heritage area, from the coastal ecosystem, the ranges—the mountainous ecosystem—to the grasslands on the east coast and the wetlands on the western coast. There is a whole lot of biodiversity that needs to be protected. In fact, the Department of Conservation is trying to put some of the bird life that has been developed on Tiritiri Mātangi Island over into the ranges with, I think, some success recently. The department has been increasing the populations of birds such as the stitchbird, the saddleback, and the kokako and putting them into the Waitakeres. There are also the streams and the water systems, which are important in their own right and also for a good water supply for Auckland. There is the scenic character, obviously, of the area, both of the forest and of the landforms and grasslands below the park. The recreation aspects are pointed out in the bill, as is the fact that the foothills are a buffer. It is good to have a buffer between the actual park itself and the suburban environment.

The bill also talks about the cultural distinctiveness of the area and how in the eastern foothills there is very much a low-density lifestyle. On the western side there is a lifestyle that is trying to prevent too much development. There are a lot of fights going on around Pīhā and places like that over particular applications for three-storey buildings and the like. So having a framework to protect that low-density lifestyle is important. Also, there is Māori cultural heritage, which is extremely important. The bill has written very strongly into it the importance of recognising the rights of the tangata whenua in that area. There is a whole historical dimension, in terms of the area being a very early area of settlement involving forestry and all the other things that went on there. The historical—the archaeological—dimension of the area is so important.

As I said, all this will be taken into account in a holistic way, and the various regional and district plans and the Auckland regional growth strategy will have to take into account what is being provided for in this bill, as also will resource consents, designations, local area management plans, and recognition of tangata whenua. All that has to be taken into account within the framework of this bill. Brian Donnelly said that perhaps we should just change the Resource Management Act, but I think there is room between the national park structure, which has been talked about in this debate and is obviously very rigid and really for serious conservation areas, and the Resource Management Act, which is a bit more local, to have a framework for an area like the Waitakeres to help protect it in a long-term way.

The framework between the national park and the Resource Management Act processes is good, and it helps the Resource Management Act processes to be appropriate. The population is very supportive of this bill, too. A survey was conducted in the area and 92 percent of people came out in support of it. So the bill has very strong local support and it would do politicians well to support it.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. People north of the Bombay Hills will be hoping like mad that in terms of consultation with Māori, the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill might strike it lucky this time—and they will not all be brown folk, either.

The Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill has particular meaning for the peoples from the ancestral lands of Ngāti Whātua Ngā Rima o Kaipara, Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei, and Te Kawerau-a-Maki, and from Te Taou. They come to this bill focused on their precious responsibilities as kaitiaki, seeking to protect their ngahere, awa, and puna from further degradation. They seek to have a voice.

The stage has now been set for how mana whenua are likely to be recognised by the Waitakere City Council, Rodney District Council, and Auckland Regional Council in working with iwi to promote the long-term protection and enhancement of this area and its heritage features. We too, the Māori Party, came to this bill looking to see how the interests of mana whenua are to be respected in caring for the Waitakere Ranges and foothills.

The importance of the Waitakere Ranges, foothills, and coastal areas is of special significance to two takiwā, hapū, and marae trusts of Ngāti Whātua, and they are Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei and the five south Kaipara marae represented by Ngāti Whātua Ngā Rima o Kaipara. For all these groups, the affected whenua, wai māori, and natural resources of taonga tuku iho identified in this bill are invested with much ongoing value in Te Rohe o Ngāti Whātua. So it has been extremely positive to read and hear that the rūnanga and individual whānau, marae, and hapū within these two takiwā support the bill, although they recognise that to tangata whenua, cultural heritage is much more significant than is currently being portrayed in the bill.

The rūnanga’s submission outlines specific and pragmatic recommendations to enhance the bill, suggesting that the intent of clause 9 to adopt a precautionary approach be strengthened, that tangata whenua participation in the governance of Watercare Services Ltd needs to be included in the criteria, and that wai māori, as a basis of its historic, cultural, and spiritual relationships with Waitakere, be included in the deed of acknowledgement between mana whenua and the three councils provided for in the bill. So far, so good.

In fact, one of the outstanding features of the separate submission from Ngati Whatua Nga Rima o Kaipara Charitable Trust was its generosity in pointing out that the wai māori allocation and monitoring rights afforded to Watercare Services Ltd not only excluded Ngāti Whātua but also deprived Kawerau-a-Maki of these assumed rights.

That made me reflect again on the words of the Waitangi Tribunal, which concluded that the process of settling claims was damaging more relationships than it was improving. The tribunal has stated, particularly in the case of Tāmaki-makau-rau, that the process is creating divisions within Māori society that are very damaging—and I quote: “Damage to whanaungatanga, to te taura Tangata, is a great wrong: it affects Māori society at its very core.”

In light of such division and damage, it is important to point out in relation to this bill, the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill, how mana whenua groups are prepared to maintain our time-honoured traditions of valuing the whakapapa connections and preserving whanaungatanga through their commitment to working together. But it appears that that process has not been perfect from the start.

We learnt that Te Rūnanga o te Taou initially opposed this bill, and supported landowners in the Muriwai district. They spoke of “token consultation” taking place at “an extremely late stage”. Indeed, their submission revealed the concern of Te Taou that not only had they not been brought into the frame of consultation until the first reading of the bill but also they had not been cited as having an interest as part of the tangata whenua relationship within the Waitakere Ranges region. Disappointingly, they are still not named in the bill’s preamble alongside Ngāti Whātua and Te Kawerau-a-Maki, despite evidence from the Waitangi Tribunal’s Kaipara report being presented to the select committee.

This bill has many issues that give cause for debate—cultural heritage, environmental protection, local government relationships, wai māori allocation and monitoring, and resource sustainability. The Māori Party comes to this bill—as with all others—thinking how best to support the interests of mana whenua in upholding their rights, defending their responsibilities, and promoting their ongoing status in the best interests of the nation.

We have heard the view from Te Taou that consultation has been unsatisfactory from their point of view, and the concerns from Ngāti Whātua that there are varying governance relationships with the three councils that in some cases exclude the two takiwā tribal constructs and traditional marae and hapū. We remind the House that local decision-making needs to involve mana whenua. We know that the mana whenua rōpū is currently being established, and it would be great to see that structure specified in the bill, to ensure their inclusion by the councils. Of course, I will be writing to all of those three councils, sending them my speech, and suggesting that they inform me of their relationships in terms of consultation with those iwi groups.

Structures are already in place. Section 81, “Contributions to decision-making processes by Māori”, of the Local Government Act 2002 is a pretty good place to start, and should be highlighted. One of the issues that comes through loud and clear is that of kaitiakitanga and the huge strain created by the damaging impact on the environment of large-scale development. The view from mana whenua is their absolute commitment towards protecting their ancestral lands—commitment that they expressed in various recommendations to lock down and extend the regulatory protections. That is from them.

The key impact of this bill will be in restricting further private-land subdivision, so that environmental protection and sustainability objectives are given priority. In that respect, mana whenua have viewed the bill as being helpful in protecting the area from the pressure of property developers. Cultural heritage should be protected by resource consents considered in a holistic strategic framework that includes all factors, not just commercial investments but also as part of our response to climatic change.

Mana whenua therefore welcome the opportunity that a strategic, overarching framework would bring to this area, mitigating against the effects of urban growth and going further than the Resource Management Act by providing for more long-term, consistent planning, monitoring, and reporting by the three councils involved.

The Māori Party welcomes the advice and feedback of mana whenua, and respects their wishes in seeing this bill as a means to continue to support their vital roles within the context of kaitiakitanga.

When my colleague Hone Harawira spoke at the first reading of this bill, he asked how the voices of Ngāti Whātu Ngā Rima o Kaipara, Te Uri o Hau, Ngāti Rongo, Te Kawerau-a-Maki, Ngāti Whatua ki Ōrākei, and all those who share common whakapapa ties to this land will be sustained in an ongoing and meaningful way. Clauses 24 to 28, which provide for a deed of acknowledgment with all tangata whenua groups who have a historical, cultural, traditional, or spiritual relationship with the land, are a step forward in the right direction. We are pleased to follow that lead and to support the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Bill at this second reading before the House.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) Link to this

Tēnā koutou katoa. Ko Titirangi te maunga, ko Te Whau te awa, ko Hoani Waititi te marae, ko Ngāti Pākehā te iwi, ko Waitakere te wāhi.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Greetings to you all. Titirangi is the mountain, Te Whau is the river, Hoani Waititi is the courtyard, Ngāti Pākehā is the tribe, and Waitakere is the place.]

I welcome and support the reintroduction of this Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill to the House. With my colleagues, I have been advocating the importance of the protection of the Waitakere Ranges since I was first elected—indeed, before then—so I am very pleased to speak today in further support of this bill. I wish first to congratulate the Local Government and Environment Committee, led by Steve Chadwick, on its report presented to this House. I am pleased to support my friend and colleague Lynne Pillay, who is the member guiding this bill through the House, and I recognise the tremendous work that she has done to bring it to this point.

Before reflecting on the history of the bill and some of its key provisions as reported by the select committee, I wish to offer a few brief comments on the contributions of other members. I express my deep respect and gratitude for the very considered approach to this bill that has been adopted by Māori Party members. They are speaking on behalf of and for tangata whenua, they are expressing the rights and the mana of mana whenua, and they are making a real difference to the protection of the Waitakere Ranges area. I acknowledge them, and the mana they are displaying in the House today. I pledge my support for further improvements to issues of cultural heritage, and for improvements to the governance relationship between tangata whenua, local and regional authorities, and central government.

I wish that all contributions had been equally considered. It is my obligation to point out several inconsistencies in offerings made to the House by members opposite. On one thing I agree with Nick Smith, the lead speaker from the National Party—that this will be a key election issue. Yes, indeed it will. Indeed, it has been a key election issue for every election in which I have run, in the Waitakere area. I think it is notable that the only really scientific poll we have of local opinion showed that 77 percent of Waitakere City residents and 81 percent of Aucklanders support at least the intent of this bill. That is the best clue that we have. All I can say, as someone who has plodded the pavements of the Waitakere area many, many times, is that that is about right. It is about three-quarters to one-quarter, or four-fifths to one-fifth—certainly the overwhelming majority—of west Aucklanders and Aucklanders who want to see this vital area preserved.

I think National is handing members on this side a great gift. Based on hearing Paula Bennett’s contribution, I do not think she will run again, because she is either saying that the bill does not go far enough and we need a national park—which would effectively exclude 21,000 residents of Waitakere City and their property rights—or she is saying that the bill goes too far and should be scrapped. Either way, it is hardly consistent logic and it hardly reflects the majority view of the area. So I take it that she will not run again, but we appreciate the contribution she has made to date.

Nick Smith came up with several completely illogical arguments. The first was that the bill adds to bureaucracy, and he mentioned that there is a district plan, a Resource Management Act, a national policy statement, and coastal policy statements. But the whole point of the bill is that it aligns and interprets the provisions within the boundaries of the area to simplify and to provide certainty and transparency for local residents, as well as for territorial authorities. It reduces rather than increases bureaucracy, and for that reason alone it commands the support of many people.

Several members said that the bill contains so-called woolly drafting. I will not pretend that the bill as first introduced to the House, on the basis of drafting from the local proponents rather than the Parliamentary Counsel Office, was perfect—it was not. But it has had a very, very thorough select committee process. Expert advice has been received from the Parliamentary Counsel Office, the Crown Law Office, the Ministry for the Environment, and the legal resources of both the proponents and opponents of the bill. Democracy has worked as it should have worked. We now have a bill that the majority of the select committee has reported back with extensive amendment, and that satisfies the concerns of officials and commands the support of our Government. This is a good bill and it is now in good drafting shape.

The only example that National could come up with as being woolly was a reference in the bill to the cherished cultural heritage of Māori, where it says that this part of New Zealand represents the tradition and the legend of Maui. National members criticised the reference to the fish, and if the best they can do is to denigrate the history of the cultural area, then I say to them that they should go back to the drawing board and enjoy at least another 3 years in Opposition. Until Opposition members learn to represent all New Zealanders, and do justice to everybody’s cultural traditions, that is where they belong.

Paula Bennett suggested the national park idea. You know, I remember Nick Smith in 1999 floating the idea of a marine park for the West Coast. That was an alternative to moderate reform that would have commanded support. Members can call me a cynic, but I reckon that the reason National floated that whopper was because it knew that the proposal could never get through and that it could be only a substitute for real reform. That is what that shallow proposal for a national park is today—a substitute for the real reform that has the support of the select committee and the support of the legal experts, and that will command the support of a majority of this House.

So why is the bill here, and what is the chief argument against it? The bill is here for one simple reason: it is impossible, logically and in practice, to determine the long-term future of any area simply on the basis of individual consents when there are long-term special features that must be considered in an overarching policy. Sometimes it is possible to achieve that through a national policy statement. If the issues are nationwide and sector-specific, that is appropriate. Sometimes it is possible to achieve that through a coastal policy statement. But where the issues are inherently local, and where they can be addressed without violating Resource Management Act process or concept—as this bill now does not—then it is perfectly appropriate that a local solution be introduced. It is the only way to fix the problem of cumulative effects—the death by a thousand cuts.

Lest members opposite forget, I remind them that the last time the National Party had influence of any measure on the Waitakere City Council, which was around 1998, the then council overrode the district plan and was taken to the Environment Court because it was not prepared to abide by due process. Things like the Little Muddy Creek study—do we forget?—overrode the proper consultation process around the district plan. If their henchmen and henchwomen could do it then, they could do it again in the future. That is why the majority of West Auckland people—and all New Zealanders—deserve a legal framework that will provide security, certainty, and transparency—

Smith Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this

That’s waffle!

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this

—for this cherished area until long after that noise box has ceased to spew his ridiculous drivel on to the floor of this Chamber. This land is the fish in the legend of tangata whenua, and if the member had paid more attention to Māori cultural rights and traditions he might have had a majority for his bankrupt point of view. He did not. Shame on him!

I feel very passionate about this bill. From the time I was first campaigning in this area I have campaigned on this issue, and before me was the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt, the former MP for New Lynn. For 30 years he foresaw a day when we could have lasting protection for our cherished ranges. Today is one step closer to that important day. I commend this bill to pass its second reading.

Carter JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) Link to this

The first thing I want to put on the record is that the National Party recognises the Waitakere Ranges as being iconic. We made that clear in the minority report we presented to the House. I would be very surprised if there were anybody in this Parliament who is not of that view. They are a special set of ranges and it is unique in lots of ways in our country—and in any city in the world—to have a range of mountains behind our Queen City. We think it is important that that is recognised. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why we want to put it in the annals of this House.

The second thing we want to acknowledge is the fact that a lot of the reasons why the Waitakere Ranges are as they are today is because of the people who live there. If one looks back over the history of the Waitakere Ranges—going back 50 or 100 years—one sees that a lot of areas were burnt, desolate, raped—

Hon David Cunliffe Link to this

Felled.

Bennett Paula Bennett Link to this

Yes, whatever. They were used for a whole lot of purposes, as was the wont of those times. What has happened is that, over time, people with absolute and keen interest in the environment, and in the Waitakere environment itself, have bought into the area. A lot of the people who live there have a long, long history in the area. They have worked with the newer residents to re-establish the environment that is there today. They are to be commended for that. Those people can take great pride in the fact that the Waitakere Ranges, as we know them today, are primarily there not because of something the Government, local council, or regional council did but because they as residents and citizens of that area have taken pride in their own environment. They are to be commended for that.

That brings us to the reason we are debating the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. It is a view that there needs to be some special recognition of the Waitakere Ranges. But I ask the question that if they are as good as they are—and they are, because the residents have made them so—why do we suddenly need to protect the ranges from the residents themselves? I would have thought, having looked at the history and at what has developed over the last 20, 30, and 50 years and longer, that the residents have done a good job by themselves, for themselves, and are capable of continuing to do so.

Then we come to the bill. It needs to be put into Hansard that one of the first questions we asked of the officials who presented to the Local Government and Environment Committee was why we need this bill. We were told repeatedly—I kept asking the question, as did other members of the committee—that the ranges could not be protected under the Resource Management Act and the district scheme and that we needed something special. Then we were told that the bill does not actually do anything more but we needed something special because we could not do it under the present Resource Management Act.

And you asked again and again.

Mapp Dr Wayne Mapp Link to this

We kept asking again and again whether we could do it under the Resource Management Act. They told us we could, but that the Resource Management Act does not do it and we need this bill because it can then do it. I kept saying that there was a conflict and that we were getting conflicting advice. On the one hand the officials were saying we need the bill because we cannot do it, but then they were assuring us that we could do it under the Resource Management Act and the present district scheme. You know, I do not know how many times I asked the question. In fact, we got to the stage where we asked the officials whether they could tell us the status of this bill as opposed to the Resource Management Act. My colleague Nick Smith asked that question. We debated that issue and received advice that if the bill had continued in the form in which it was then, it would have had a higher standing than the Resource Management Act itself. Paula Bennett, Nick Smith, and myself—and others on the committee—then had to get advice on how we could reduce that status, because we cannot have a local bill that has a higher status than general legislation.

So the bill was changed, which brought us to the position where the question was that if it is now of lower status, and if we can do what the bill intends to do under the Resource Management Act, why do we need it? I have to say that having questioned the officials time and time again, we finally got a concession from them that they had misinformed us. They had actually deliberately lied to the committee. That is the best way to put it. They had told us that we needed the bill because they could not do it. Finally, they conceded that they could do all the things we needed to do under the present district scheme.

Who lied?

Bennett Paula Bennett Link to this

The local government officials.

You were indignant.

Mapp Dr Wayne Mapp Link to this

I was seriously upset by that. I was so upset that I took it to the mayor and said: “Do you understand what happened? Your officials who came before us lied to the select committee.” He said he did not believe that. I said: “Well, let’s go and ask.” At the local government conference I asked the officials and we had confirmation from them that they had misled the select committee. I say to this House that for that reason alone—the fact that the officials felt they had to go out of their way to lie to the select committee, and to this Parliament as a consequence—we should not be passing this bill. We cannot have a local bill that is not based on the truth. I have to say that I was seriously disappointed, upset, and indignant, as Paula Bennett has just said, that officials came before a select committee of Parliament and misled us.

The fact is that as the bill is drafted at the moment, we have been assured by officials time and time again now that under the Resource Management Act and the district scheme we can do what this bill allows. One of the things I have always fought against in this Parliament is passing unnecessary legislation. If this legislation goes through today—if it goes through the process and is passed into law—then we will have passed legislation that is unnecessary. If this bill was as necessary as we have been told it is, then there are other ways in which the matter could have been addressed, and it should have been done that way. The local authority has the power under its district scheme to do the things this bill intends. The local authority has the power to change the district scheme to allow—

Make its rules.

Hughes Darren Hughes Link to this

Absolutely! Indeed, another worry we have with this bill is that it will add another layer of bureaucracy and another layer of law. It is unnecessary. It will not achieve anything. But here we are today debating legislation that will put more bureaucracy and rate costs on to the local people but will achieve nothing. I say that for that reason this Parliament should not support the bill.

The National Party supports the Waitakere Ranges. We think they are iconic. We have said so in our minority report. The caucus is fully of that view. But we do not support unnecessary legislation. Today I say to this House that that is exactly what we are doing here. For that reason—and that reason alone—I will vote against the legislation, and I know my colleagues will join me in not supporting this legislation.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Fenton DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this

It is a great pleasure to take a call on the second reading of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. I want to talk about where I live, because I live at the end of the suburban railway line in west Auckland, in a small village called Waitakere. The people in my street look out over farmland, the foothills, and the magnificent ranges in the background. They are not rich landowners. They are ordinary New Zealanders who, like me, have chosen to live in an area that is special, and that has cultural, historical, and ecological importance to all New Zealanders. So I can confirm to the House, as a Waitakere resident, that the bill we are debating tonight reflects the desire of the local people in my community to ensure that the magnificent Waitakere Ranges, foothills, and coastal areas are kept for the enjoyment of future generations.

A short drive up the road from my place is the wonderful Bethells Beach/Te Henga Beach. People have lived there for a thousand years. Te Kawerau-a-Maki cultivated the lowlands and lived in fortified pā sites along the cliffs above the shoreline. In the middle of last century European settlers came to fell the giant kauri trees and ship them out along the coastal rail line, the remains of which are still visible today. They also dug for kauri gum, they established farms, vineyards, and orchards, and they made bricks and pottery. By the 1920s the lumberjacks had exhausted much of the kauri, and the regeneration process of Auckland’s fantastic back garden began.

The nearby village of Swanson used to be Auckland’s dumping-ground, but the community has built on its settler history and, along with the local council, has revitalised it with new parks, tree plantings, and an iconic railway station. The Waitakere Ranges Regional Park is close by, and is one part of the Waitakere ranges heritage area established under this bill. The parkland covers 17,000 hectares and is an important natural area, not only because of its nationally significant landforms, landscapes, and biodiversity but also because of its close proximity to urban Auckland.

This is the heart of the heritage area, and it had its origins as a protected area way back in 1895, when the Crown vested 1,900 hectares of forested land in the Auckland City Council as reserves for the purpose of recreation and the conservation of native flora and fauna. The parkland was rapidly extended by purchases and by substantial private gifts. There has been intensive community activity—and we have heard a lot about that in this debate—and advocacy for the area ever since then, and the recognition of the national significance of this heritage area, which is the purpose of this bill and is outlined in the preamble, has been with us all for a long time.

This bill not only recognises the national significance of the park but also restates its purpose. It re-establishes a planning regime that is certain and is tied to delivering on long-term objectives. The Waitakere Ranges area, where my family, neighbours, and friends live, is also a vital asset for Auckland citizens, who, with a short drive to the west, can walk in ancient forests, experience new birdlife, learn about our early history, or escape to the wild west coast beaches; 2.5 million people visit the magnificent parkland and beaches every year. So this bill is of importance to all citizens, not just those of us who live in the foothills of the Waitakere Ranges.

Even National members recognise that the Waitakere Ranges are an Auckland and a New Zealand icon, and they have called for them to be given national park status, as provided for under existing law. But I think National has completely misread this bill and the reaction of local people. As a local person, I can account for that. What those members do not seem to understand is that it is simply not possible to protect the ranges without protecting the foothills and the coastal areas. If we do not, the whole area is at risk. Quite frankly, as a Waitakere resident I have been appalled at the misinformation and deliberate scare tactics of some of the opponents of this bill, including some in the National Party. We need to learn fast that interventions like this bill are essential if we are serious about our planet. Economics cannot always be the overriding concern; that is old thinking. Economics have to be weighed up alongside the environment, and sometimes the environment needs to win.

There are other concerns for Aucklanders. The Waitakere Ranges supply about a quarter of Auckland’s water supply. There are three concrete and two earth dams in the ranges, and the story of how they were built in the early 1900s is worth a good study, for anyone who does not know about it. If members have not been for a ride on the tramline that was originally built to haul in the materials to construct the Waitakere Dam, I recommend it to anyone.

How much does it cost?

Fenton DARIEN FENTON Link to this

It is cheap, very cheap, so the National Party could afford it. Tram riders experience a bush-brushed ride through tunnels, and over bridges and viaducts, in a fantastic introduction to the remarkable rainforest growing right on Auckland’s doorstep. Watercare Services leases the 6,600 hectares of catchment land from Auckland regional parks, and today these areas serve a dual purpose as protected catchment supply areas and as recreational and biological assets managed within the regional park.

The bill acknowledges the historical importance of this supply in the development of Auckland, and it identifies its operation as a heritage feature to be protected through its water supply and recreation functions. The ranges deliver services that underpin the Auckland economy and its emergence as a city region of international importance. The closeness of the Waitakere Ranges to New Zealand’s largest urban area contributes both to their unique value and to the risks proposed to them. They are under the intense development pressures of a rapidly growing metropolitan area. For example, in the foothills 40 years ago the minimum lot size was 20.2 hectares, at the beginning of the 1980s it was 5 hectares, then more recently it was 4 hectares, and now it is proposed that lots are to be sold at 1 hectare and less.

One of the particular reasons why I support this bill is that in my area we have seen some disastrous attempts at development nearby in Swanson, resulting in blocked streams and slips and a large scar on the hillside that is just starting to heal. The council has had to work very, very hard to rectify the problems that this development has caused. Another reason I support this bill is that our back garden is now a bird sanctuary. Believe me, we did not start out intending to make it that way; it was a matter of our not cutting down trees for a few years. But it has become so because of the restoration of the forest and the planting of trees in the foothills, which has brought more birdlife into the area. Rare birds not seen on the mainland for decades have been introduced into the regional park. Hihi, whitehead, and native robins can now be spotted regularly. There are plans to introduce other species that until now have survived only in specific conservation protected areas, offshore islands, or forests. What a wonderful thing that has been for our local people—to have birds like that, which we thought were almost extinct on the mainland.

The Waitakere Ranges provide a beautiful backdrop to urban Auckland. This bill helps ensure that the ranges—including the foothills and coastal villages, which are also covered by the heritage area created by the bill—are protected for future generations to enjoy. I commend the councils involved in promoting this bill, the Auckland Regional Council, the Rodney District Council, and the Waitakere City Council, for their foresight and their determination. I also commend all the citizens of Waitakere who have been so passionate about this and who for many years have worked hard to get us to the point where we are debating this bill.

I also congratulate the able member in charge of the bill, my fellow westie Lynne Pillay, and I congratulate the Local Government and Environment Committee, led by the very wonderful Steve Chadwick, on its intelligent consideration of the bill. I know that my family and my neighbours will be celebrating along with many others as this bill moves through its remaining stages in the House. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Henare Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could send a message to the people in charge of the speaker system, because I did not hear most of the speech made by the member who has just resumed her seat. I wonder whether you could get somebody to turn the speakers up.

Henare Hon TAU HENARE Link to this

I am sorry to hear that. If I had been aware of it earlier, I would have. It will be looked into immediately. [ Interruption]

It is not a flippant point of order. I honestly could not hear, and there was not a lot of noise in the Chamber.

Henare Hon TAU HENARE Link to this

No, but it is becoming flippant by you simply saying that it is not a flippant point of order. I realise it is not, I did not take it as such, and the process is under way.

That is all we need to hear from you.

Henare Hon TAU HENARE Link to this

That is all you are going to hear, and you will keep quiet now.

Thank you very much.